Biogas Project Screening Report
Transcription
Biogas Project Screening Report
Project Screening Report Barrie Wastewater Treatment Facility Biogas Utilization Upgrades Prepared for The City of Barrie Prepared by CH2M HILL Canada Limited 126 Wellington Street West Suite 303 Barrie, ON L4N 1K9 July 2012 Revised September 2012 WB422564BAR Contents Table of Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Introduction and Background ................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act ........................................................ 1-3 1.3 Electricity Projects Regulation O.Reg. 116/01.................................................. 1-3 1.4 Project Team .......................................................................................................... 1-5 1.5 Report Organization ............................................................................................ 1-5 Problem Definition ..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Purpose of Study .................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Rationale for the Study ........................................................................................ 2-1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 The Cogeneration Process ................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Biogas Production ..................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Potential Biogas Storage Function .......................................................... 3-2 3.1.3 Plant Power Consumption ...................................................................... 3-3 3.2 Social Environment .............................................................................................. 3-4 3.2.1 Location and Surrounding Land Uses ................................................... 3-4 3.2.2 Official Plan ............................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.3 Other Applicable Policies and Legislation ............................................ 3-6 3.3 Natural and Physical Environment ................................................................... 3-6 3.3.1 Physiography............................................................................................. 3-6 3.3.2 Aquatic Features and Watercourses....................................................... 3-7 3.3.3 Aquatic Habitat and Communities ........................................................ 3-8 3.3.4 Vegetation and Vegetation Communities ............................................. 3-8 3.3.5 Wildlife Habitat and Communities ........................................................ 3-8 3.4 Archaeological Review ........................................................................................ 3-9 Identification of Alternatives .................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Components of Alternatives ............................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Biogas Usage Options............................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Biogas Storage Technologies ................................................................... 4-4 Evaluation of Alternatives ......................................................................................... 5-7 5.1 Evaluation Methodology and Results ............................................................... 5-7 5.1.2 Selection of the Preferred Biogas Storage Technology ........................ 5-1 Recommended Solution ............................................................................................. 6-4 6.1 Option 3A: Two Cogen Engines Feed Power to the Grid and/or for Plant Load Displacement................................................................................................................. 6-4 6.2 Option A: Medium Pressure Gas Vessel ........................................................... 6-4 Recommended Solution Design ............................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Biogas Handling and Storage ............................................................................. 7-1 7.2 System Control Modifications ............................................................................ 7-1 7.3 Upgraded Cogeneration Site Layout ................................................................. 7-2 Effects and Mitigation ................................................................................................ 8-1 9. 10. 11. 8.1 Potential Effects and Proposed Mitigation during Construction .................. 8-1 8.1.1 Construction Effects.................................................................................. 8-1 8.1.2 Trucks and Traffic Effects ........................................................................ 8-1 8.1.3 Noise ........................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1.4 Air Quality ................................................................................................. 8-2 8.2 Potential Effects and Proposed Mitigation during Operation ....................... 8-2 8.2.1 Human Health and Safety ....................................................................... 8-2 8.2.2 Noise ........................................................................................................... 8-2 8.2.3 Visual Aesthetics ....................................................................................... 8-2 Public and Agency Consultation .............................................................................. 9-1 9.1 Public Consultation .............................................................................................. 9-1 9.2 Agency Consultation ........................................................................................... 9-1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 10-3 10.1 Project Summary ................................................................................................ 10-3 10.2 Project Implementation Strategy ...................................................................... 10-3 10.3 Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................... 10-4 Works Cited ................................................................................................................ 11-1 Appendices Appendix A Agency Consultation Appendix B Public Consultation Appendix C Technical Memoranda Appendix D Noise Study 3 1. Introduction and Background The City of Barrie has been investing in renewable energy over the past twenty years. One such investment is the Barrie Wastewater Treatment Facility (WwTF) which has been using the gas produced from its digesters to generate electricity and heat since 1996. Biogas, also known as digester gas, is a by-product of sludge treated by anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic digestion is the biological process in which biodegradable organic matter is broken-down by bacteria into biogas, which consists of methane, carbon dioxide, and other trace gases. The WwTF has gone through a number of enhancements and capacity increases which allow the digesters to produce enough biogas to generate electricity to offset a portion of the WwTF energy demands. The WwTF’s normal practice is to continuously fire one 250 kW cogen engine to offset plant power consumption. Currently, the electricity produced from biogas can offset plant power purchase from the local power grid by thirty to forty percent. This translates to nearly $220,000 per year in electricity cost savings. As the plant continues to expand to serve the growing population, the production of biogas will continue to increase offering more energy and cost saving potential. 1.1 Background The Barrie WwTF is located at 249 Bradford St., Barrie, Ontario (Figure 1). It is owned and operated by the City of Barrie. The plant was originally constructed in 1940, with many expansions and additions throughout from the 1950s to present-day. In 1996 the digestion facilities were upgraded with new digesters, gas mixing systems, and aerobic reactors for the recovery of heat and the production of electricity from biogas (The City of Barrie, 2004). In 2004, two carbon tower units were added to improve biogas quality by removing engine corrosive compounds in the biogas stream. The biogas produced by microorganisms in the digesters is burned to generate electrical power to offset operational requirements of the WwTF and heat, to warm treatment processes as well as facility buildings during winter. This process is known as cogeneration. 1-1 FIGURE 1 Location of the Barrie WwTF The Barrie WwTF has two cogeneration engines in a duty/standby configuration and two hot water boilers. The amount of biogas currently generated is sufficient to fuel one cogeneration (cogen) engine at close to full capacity all year round, reducing the plant power load by thirty to forty percent. The current challenge is that only one engine is being fully utilized and the surplus gas is insufficient to start the second engine. In addition, there is limited headspace within the digesters to store peak diurnal gas production. As a result, surplus biogas would either be flared through a waste gas burner or combusted in a waste heat boiler. In the summer of 2011, the City of Barrie initiated a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) in order to determine all potential uses of the surplus biogas and the associated system modifications needed, which included an evaluation of enrolling in Ontario’s Feed-inTariff (FIT) program. A Schedule B Municipal Class EA was commenced in accordance with the requirements for Schedule B projects as described in the Municipal Engineers Association document titled Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011), as opposed to the requirements for a Renewable Energy Approval (O. Reg. 359/09) under Green Energy Act typically required for FIT projects. The project is exempt from the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) process according to Section 9 (1) 4 of O.Reg. 359/09 (Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2011) since the Barrie WwTF is an energy-producing facility with an existing Certificate of Approval. This exemption was confirmed during a pre-consultation meeting with the MOE and is documented in the meeting minutes provided in Appendix A. As the Schedule B screening study progressed, no significant environmental effects were identified and it was determined, in consultation with the MOE, that the project can be classified as a “Category A” project as defined in the Electricity Projects Regulation (O.Reg. 116/01). A “Category A” project does not require approval under the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act as per section 2(1) (b) of O.Reg. 116/01. 1-2 1.2 Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) was enacted in 1975 and came into force in 1976. The EAA requires the study, documentation, and examination of the environmental effects that could result from major water projects or activities. The objective of the EAA is to consider the possible effects of these projects early in the planning process, when concerns may be most easily resolved, and to select a preferred alternative with the fewest environmental impacts. The EAA defines environment very broadly as: a. Air, land or water, b. Plant and animal life, including humans. c. The social, economic, and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a community. d. Any building, structure, machine or other device or thing made by humans. e. Any solid, liquid, gas, odor, heat, sound, vibration or radiation resulting directly or indirectly form human activities. f. Any part or combination of the foregoing and the interrelationships between any two or more of the above, in or of Ontario. Various regulations fall under the EAA and it also establishes a "Class Environmental Assessment" process to streamline the planning of municipal projects for road, water, and sewage and stormwater projects. A similar proponent-led self assessment process similar to the Class EA process is the Electricity Projects Environmental Assessment defined in the Electricity Projects Regulation O.Reg. 116/01. 1.3 Electricity Projects Regulation O.Reg. 116/01 Ontario Regulation 116/01 sets out the environmental assessment planning process for some electricity projects and determines the categories of assessment based on capacity, fuel type and potential for significant environmental effects. Electricity projects that may have relatively benign environmental effects are not subject to any EA requirements. Electricity projects that may have some environmental effects that can be easily mitigated or managed are required to complete the Environmental Screening Process. Electricity projects that are likely to have significant environmental effects are required to complete the EA process as outlined in Part II of the EAA. The Barrie Biogas Utilization project is classified as a “Category A” project as defined in the Electricity Projects Regulation O.Reg. 116/01. It is a biomass cogeneration facility of less than 25 MW with an efficiency of greater than 60% and therefore does not require approval under the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act based on the section 2(1) (b) of O.Reg. 116/01. However, even with this exemption, the EA Act may have still applied if there were to be significant environmental effects associated with the project. Since the recommended solution was not known at the time of project initiation and several of the alternatives could have had a major 1-3 impact on the way the City does business with its residents (e.g. sell biogas to public), it was believed that the best approach to effectively communicate to the public was through the Municipal Class EA process. Phases 1 and 2 of a Schedule B Class EA, were completed which involved assessing alternative design solutions, determining the impacts of each solution, and selecting a preferred solution. The activities undertaken during each phase are documented in this Project Screening Report. 1-4 1.4 Project Team CH2M HILL Canada Limited was been retained by the City of Barrie to fulfill the EA requirements for this project. 1.5 Report Organization This report is organized into nine sections. Section 1 introduces the project and EA processes. Section 2 outlines the problem definition and Section 3 examines the existing conditions in the study area including the cogeneration process and existing natural, social and cultural conditions. Sections 4 and 5 outline design alternatives and evaluate them. Section 6 identifies a preferred solution based on the evaluation and Section 7 provides a preliminary design overview for the preferred solution. Section 8 identifies the potential impacts of the solution and offers mitigation measures for those impacts. Section 9 outlines public and agency consultation activities including documentation from the Public Information Centre (PIC) as well as correspondence with review agencies. Section 10 provides a project summary and conclusions. COPYRIGHT 2012 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 1-5 2. Problem Definition 2.1 Purpose of Study A Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment study was undertaken in order to determine the preferred biogas use option to optimize energy recovery and usage from biogas with the existing cogeneration system or by other means at the Barrie Wastewater Treatment Facility (WwTF). 2.2 Rationale for the Study Surplus biogas is currently flared through a waste gas burner or combusted in a boiler. To harness the full energy potential of the biogas, this Class EA study explored existing and potential on-site and offsite gas usage options, the feasibility of enrolling in the provincial FIT program, gas storage technologies, cogeneration engine control system modifications, as well as assessed the relative impacts of each developed alternative solution on all aspects of the existing environment - technical, natural, socio-cultural and financial. COPYRIGHT 2012 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 2-1 3. Existing Conditions 3.1 The Cogeneration Process Biogas (primarily methane gas) is a by-product of wastewater sludge treatment in anaerobic digesters. Treated or stabilized sludge, known as biosolids are then transported off-site. The biogas produced by microorganisms in the digesters is burned to generate electrical power to offset operational requirements of the WwTF, as well as heat to warm treatment processes and facility buildings during winter. This process is known as cogeneration (cogen). 3.1.1 Biogas Production The Barrie WwTF has two 250kW cogen engines. The engines operate in rotation (duty/standby) and can be fired by both biogas and natural gas. They produce power that feeds back to the WwTF switchgear to supplement power consumption in the plant. Surplus gas that exceeds the capacity of a single engine is flared or sent to a small boiler in the plant (Figure 3). FIGURE 3 The Existing Cogeneration System The plant currently generates approximately 4300m3/day of biogas, which is sufficient to meet the full operating capacity of one cogen engine, but is insufficient to start the second engine simultaneously. Limited gas storage within the digesters also restricts the plant from fully utilizing the available biogas to maximize power generation. An assessment of the existing biogas facility was carried out during the preliminary design stage for the expansion of the WwTF to 76 MLD (million litres per day) capacity. The conclusion is that the facility will need to operate two cogen engines by 2023 in order to fully utilize the COPYRIGHT 2012 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 3-1 biogas. Table 1 presents the historical and projected annual average biogas production until 2023 at the Barrie WwTF. TABLE 1 Historical and Projected Annual Average Biogas Production in Barrie WwTF Annual Average Biogas Production, 2006 3574 2007 3630 2008 3802 2009 No data available 2010 4177 2011 3141 1 Daily Diurnal Peak Factor 2 Projected Average Biogas Production 3, 3.1.2 3 m /day 1.10 3 m /day 2012 4507 2013 4649 2014 4791 2015 4934 2016 5076 2017 5218 2018 5360 2019 5502 2020 5645 2021 5787 2022 5929 2023 6071 Potential Biogas Storage Function Generally, only one cogen engine will be fired continuously until biogas availability and storage reaches a point that allows the continuous firing of two cogen engines. Biogas storage could be employed to serve as a buffer tank that continuously accumulates unused excess gas until there is sufficient volume (i.e. gas pressure achieves a given high level set point) for the second engine to come online. The second engine will stop when the gas pressure in the storage drops to below a set level. With this storage facility as a buffer, the plant could choose to operate one engine during the non-peak electricity rate period, divert excess gas to storage, and then fire two engines to maximize power production during peak electricity rate periods to minimize energy costs. 1 A lower value was recorded due to interruptions during the construction of the WwTF upgrades. 2 Established based on September 2008 one-month data. 3 Future biogas production is estimated by using the biogas generated to plant flow ratio established from historical data between 2008 to 2010. Forecasts will be revised during detailed design based on historical data plus additional monitoring information from the new Primary Digester 3 (PD-3) when it comes online. 3-2 The potential location to place a biogas storage structure is over a dismantled primary clarifier adjacent to Lakeshore Drive. Figure 4 shows the proposed biogas storage area. The existing foundations from the old structure are still in place. FIGURE 4 Proposed Biogas Storage Area 3.1.3 Plant Power Consumption The City of Barrie purchases electricity for its various utility operations from PowerStream. Electricity rates are determined by the Spot Market. The Spot Market is an open market where the electricity price in the market fluctuates based on supply and demand. The market price is set hourly by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) based on power supply and demand forecasts in Ontario. In late 2009, PowerStream installed power meters for various facilities in the City of Barrie. The power meter features allows consumers to obtain hourly power consumption data of their facility from a website called the “e-MeterData. Data between November 2009 and January 2011 for the Barrie WwTF was extracted from the database to generate the diurnal power consumption pattern in the plant. Figure 5 illustrates the energy differential from operating just one cogen engine. Additional energy and costs savings are possible if two cogen engines operate continuously during peak electricity rate periods. 3-3 FIGURE 5 Average Diurnal Power Consumption in Barrie WwTF between November 2009 to January 2011 Diurnal Power Consumption 1200 Metered Power (kWh) 1000 Energy Differential 800 600 With 1 Cogen Operating - Mar'10 to Jan'11 400 Without Cogen - Nov'09 to Feb'10 200 0 0:00 3:00 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 0:00 Daily Hours 3.2 Social Environment 3.2.1 Location and Surrounding Land Uses The City of Barrie is built around Kempenfelt Bay on Lake Simcoe. The Barrie WwTF is located near the shores of the southwest end of Kempenfelt Bay at 249 Bradford Street. Bradford Street borders the WwTF to the west, with Lakeshore Drive to the east, and Tiffin Street to the south. The Barrie WwTF is located in a mixed-use are near the centre of the City of Barrie. The site is bordered by residential and commercial buildings to the north, west, and south. The eastern end of the site is Centennial Park bordering Kempenfelt Bay which contains a trail system and parking lots. Lakeshore Drive separates the plant from parklands along the Kempenfelt Bay waterfront. Dyments Creek delineates the north end of the WwTF property and features a pond that is used as a recreational area for the residents of the nearby apartment building. Commercial buildings are situated directly south of the WwTF property. Figure 6 is an aerial photo of the Barrie WwTF taken in 2010 showing the plant and its surroundings. 3-4 FIGURE 6 Barrie Wastewater Treatment Facility and Environs 3.2.2 Official Plan The Barrie WwTF is located in the City Centre planning area, in a special zone designated as Municipal Services and Utilities (MSU). The rest of the Barrie City Centre is zoned Commercial (shaded red in Figure 7). Adjacent to the WwTF to the west along Tiffin Street is mainly Residential (in yellow) and Parklands are located to the east (in green). Purple shading indicates Industrial zoning. New structures on the Barrie WwTF property will consider visual aesthetics due to these surrounding land uses. Lakeshore Drive is planned for road realignment according to the Road Widening Plan (City of Barrie, 2011). The City of Barrie Official Plan also outlines the City’s goals to “promote the use of alternative energy systems where appropriate” and “to facilitate development of renewable energy systems and to support the establishment of a green economy in accordance with the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (2009)”. The Barrie WwTF Biogas Utilization Upgrades Project supports these goals. 3-5 FIGURE 7 Planning Areas (From Schedule B of the City of Barrie Official Plan 2010) 3.2.3 Other Applicable Policies and Legislation The Barrie WwTF is located within the Lake Simcoe watershed, where the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan applies to all developmental activities. In addition, the area is within the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) regulation limits (Ontario Regulation 179/06). Water quality, hydrology and natural heritage features will be protected during the construction and operation of the biogas storage facility. 3.3 Natural and Physical Environment 3.3.1 Physiography The Lake Simcoe watershed and the City of Barrie’s natural and physical environment were shaped by glaciation. In most areas, thick glacial till, gravels, sands, and clays cover the bedrock. The majority of soils is well drained and occurs on smooth, and marginally to steeply sloping topography (CH2M HILL, 2004) The Barrie WwTF is located within a former marsh area. Historically (in the late 1940s and 1950s) the marshland was filled and landscaped to provide aesthetic parkland, wildlife habitat, and urban buildings. Due to its underlying wetland origin, the soils are relatively unstable, thus requiring all buildings on site to have a pile foundation (CH2M HILL, 2004). The proposed storage facility may be built overtop a dismantled primary clarifier, and the need for additional pile foundations will be evaluated during the detailed design phase. 3-6 3.3.2 Aquatic Features and Watercourses Lake Simcoe is a highly significant water body due to its size, recreational uses, fisheries and aesthetic value. Storm drainage from the WwTF property generally flows eastward towards Kempenfelt Bay via stream channels and other stormwater conduits. The proposed biogas storage at the south end of the WwTF property is in close proximity to Hotchkiss Creek. The creek flows southwest to northeast from the Essa Road/Ardagh area (west of Highway 400) for approximately 2.2 km to Kempenfelt Bay (C.C. Tatham and Associates, 2011). A Master Drainage Plan subject to the Municipal Class EA process for Hotchkiss Creek was completed in October 2000 and updated in January 2011. The Master Drainage Plan provided an investigation, evaluation and recommendation of a preferred solution to address property flooding issues and other watershed objectives. Physical changes to the watershed have occurred since the initial plan, such as upgrades to culverts and channels in the downstream reaches of the Hotchkiss Creek system in the Bradford Street area that have historically subjected residential properties and the Barrie WwTF to potential flooding. Recent improvements, including a new crossing at Lakeshore Drive with a Regional Storm Conveyance system designed for a 100 year return period has removed the WwTF entirely from Hotchkiss Creek’s Regional Storm Floodplain (C.C. Tatham and Associates, 2011). Dyments Creek, a cold water tributary of Lake Simcoe, borders the north end of the WwTF property. The Dyments Creek Master Drainage Plan prepared in 2004, indicates that the northern entrance to the WwTF is at risk of flooding during a 100-year flood but future drainage improvements will eliminate this risk. This is not a concern for the proposed biogas storage facility which will be situated at the southern end of the WwTF property. Both Dyments and Hotchkiss Creeks are regulated by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA). FIGURE 8 Hotchkiss and Dyments Creeks (From Schedue H of the City of Barrie Official Plan 2010) Barrie WwTF 3-7 3.3.3 Aquatic Habitat and Communities Lake Simcoe provides habitat for both cold and warm water fish species including: large and small mouth bass, northern pike, yellow perch, lake trout, whitefish, and black crappie. Kempenfelt Bay is the deepest portion of Lake Simcoe and supports many of these fish species. Lake Simcoe whitefish is a genetically distinct type of whitefish and is considered a provincially threatened species. Accelerated eutrophication of Lake Simcoe has caused an overall shift from predominantly coldwater species such as lake trout, whitefish and herring species in the lake to those that prefer warmer water such as perch, bass and sunfish. The Ministry of Natural Resources’ Lake Simcoe’s Coldwater Fish Stocking Program aims to restore these coldwater fish species populations in Lake Simcoe (CH2M HILL, 2004). Hotchkiss Creek is highly altered by channelization but fishery potential can exist within the creek during certain times of the year. Fish passage can be accommodated during all seasons. Baitfish have been reported in the creek system which confirms this fishery potential; however additional studies are needed for confirmation (C.C. Tatham and Associates, 2011). Water quality improvement and aquatic habitat enhancements have been completed as part of the channel improvements outlined in the Master Drainage Plan. 3.3.4 Vegetation and Vegetation Communities The Barrie WwTF is bordered by a perimeter chain link fence. The vegetation within the WwTF property consists of ornamental hardwoods, planted groves of conifers, and manicured turf grasses that form part of the landscaping at the WwTF. Deciduous tree plantings include Norway Maple, Sugar Maple, Red Maple, Silver Maple, and White Ash. Conifer stands consist of Austrian Pine, White Pine, Red Pine, White Spruce and Norway Spruce. Most trees are mature with a trunk diameter greater than 15cm. The same varieties of deciduous and coniferous trees are planted around the Dyments Creek pond north of the WwTF. There are no Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs), Environmentally Significant/Sensitive Areas (ESAs) or Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) located within or adjacent to the WwTF site (CH2M HILL, 2004). 3.3.5 Wildlife Habitat and Communities The species found at the Dyments Creek pond are typical of urban environments: pigeons, mallard ducks, domestic ducks, Canada Geese, muskrats, and squirrels with occasional sightings of skunks. Based on ongoing human activities such as park maintenance and landscaping, the species present are tolerant to human disturbances and edge habitats (CH2M HILL, 2004). A search of the Natural Heritage Information Database for Species At Risk in the study area did not reveal any species that are endangered, threatened or of special concern. Based on the highly disturbed nature of the site, the construction of the biogas storage facility within a paved parking lot at the south end of the wastewater plant existing would not result in the clearing of additional natural vegetation. Disturbances associated with construction activities would be minimal and short in duration. Impacts to wildlife are expected to be minimal. 3-8 3.4 Archaeological Review An Archeological Assessment of the Barrie Wastewater Treatment Facility was undertaken in September 1992. No in-situ archeological deposits were found and the assessment was accepted by the Ministry of Culture. Since the Ministry of Culture deemed the 1992 sufficient, no further archeological assessments are necessary for this study (CH2M HILL, 2004). 3-9 4. Identification of Alternatives 4.1 Components of Alternatives The biogas utilization upgrade alternatives consist of two parts: (1) biogas usage and (2) biogas storage. It was recognized early in the process that for several of the biogas usage alternatives that on-site storage of biogas would be necessary. As such, a component of this overall study was to investigate what could be done to temporarily store biogas until it is needed. Various options for these two components are discussed in this section. 4.1.1 Biogas Usage Options Seven (7) future biogas usage options were evaluated. Common to all options, including the ‘Do Nothing’ option, is the ongoing use of biogas as a fuel for WwTF boilers and cogeneration engines. The future biogas usage options were based on the three main purposes: 1) displace additional plant power load; 2) feed electricity to the local power grid; and, 3) convey biogas or hot water for off-site use. Below is a description of the biogas options in addition to the “Do Nothing” option. Option 1 - Offset additional plant power use with the electricity produced with biogas (plant load displacement) The WwTF could generate additional electricity (up to 500 kW) for a few hours during peak electricity rate hours (9:00AM to 9:00PM) to offset electricity costs. The WwTF would fire two engines at full capacity, and fire one engine to generate 250 kW hour during off-peak rates. This option would lead to additional cost savings. System modifications would be made to allow power generated from the two cogens to be fed to the plant switch gear for additional plant load displacement. The control strategy will be to allow the engines to operate in a lead-lag fashion based on biogas availability. Option 2 - Participate in the Transition Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) Program to feed power to the local grid In 2009, the provincial government introduced the Green Energy and Economy Act. A component of the Green Energy Act is the Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) Program, which was implemented by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) in September 2009. The program encourages independent generators to produce electricity using renewable energies (wind, solar, hydro, and biomass) by providing a guaranteed pricing structure for renewable energy production over a contract term of twenty years. The City of Barrie would like to take advantage of this program as it is in line with the City of Barrie’s objectives to facilitate the development of renewable energy systems and to support the establishment of a green economy. 340720A101_ WB062007001TOR COPYRIGHT 2012 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 4-1 In November 2009, the OPA amended the FIT program rules by adding a “Transition Option” category, with the objective of encouraging enrollment from small existing generator facilities to take part in the renewable energy movement. The amendment allows existing small renewable energy projects (of less than 500 kW) to be eligible for FIT even without carrying out any upgrade or expansion work. The existing 250kW cogeneration facility in Barrie WwTF is eligible as a Transition Project. The City of Barrie submitted an application for the Transition Option FIT Program in December 2010 and is awaiting approval from the Ontario Power Authority (OPA). This option considers selling all power generated from the cogen engines to the local utility at premium pricing under the FIT Program. The City would purchase energy from PowerStream at standard pricing to operate the WwTF. If a FIT contract is awarded, the plant could sell the electricity generated through the cogen engines. Cables would be installed from the cogen system switchgear to the to the 4.16kV feeder on Bradford/Brock Street. This option is not feasible if a FIT contract is not granted by the OPA. Option 3 - A combination of both (1) and (2) This option is flexible and would allow the WwTF to produce power to offset electricity costs during peak rate hours or sell power generated from one or both of the cogen engines under the FIT Program. There are two ways that cogeneration system controls can be modified: a) Two cogen engines feed power back to the grid and/or for plant load displacement Some electrical interlocking with the operator interface will allow the operator to select one of the two modes of operation: feed power back to the grid, or feed power to plant switchgear for plant load displacement both at 500kW. b) One cogen engine feeds power back to the grid, and one engine is used for plant load displacement This configuration considers the possibility of allowing the plant to use cogen power to sell back to the grid and for plant load displacement at the same time. This requires one cogen engine dedicated to feeding power to the grid, and the other dedicated to feeding to the plant switch gear. At any given time, the plant and the grid will receive a maximum of 250 kW instead of the combined 500 kW like the other configurations. Under this scenario, plant operators will select either one of the engines as the primary and the other one as secondary power generators. The primary power generator will receive biogas fuel continuously, and the secondary generator will come online when additional biogas is available. This allows the plant operator to decide when power is most suited for plant load displacement and when to sell back to the grid on a daily basis. Option 4 - Transport biogas for off-site use at the historic Allandale Train Station The City has already considered conveying biogas for use at the refurbished Allendale Train Station. This scenario is not feasible due to space limitations for a dual fire boiler at the train station. Also, the complexity involved in conveying the gas would make it a challenge to meet the requirements under the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000 and would require specialized training and licensing to operate. 4-2 Option 5 - Sell biogas or heated water to nearby apartment buildings The City has also considered the possibility of conveying biogas to heat nearby apartment buildings as an alternative to natural gas. However this option is also not feasible for similar reasons compared to Option 4, including the potential environmental impacts of constructing a pipeline crossing at Dyments Creek. The consistency of fuel supply would also be an issue. The transport of heated water over long distances may not be practical due to heat loss, and the construction of infrastructure to convey hot water could also adversely impact the natural environment. Option 6 -Produce hot water for internal WwTF heating A greater percentage of the excess biogas could be sent to the 980 kWh boiler for heat recovery to heat the WwTF. However the necessity for internal WwTF heating is higher in the winter than the summer, which would not eliminate the need to for waste gas flaring in the summer. Option 7 - Clean biogas and sell to natural gas supplier (ie: Enbridge) Biogas from the digesters can be treated and sold to a local natural gas supplier. A treated gas storage facility would be required as well as piping infrastructure to supply the biogas. This option would have similar environmental impacts as Option 5. The City would have to take on the added responsibility of cleaning the biogas to meet natural gas quality and would have to enter into commitments to ensure consistency in flow. Option 8- Do Nothing The “Do Nothing” option is to not use the excess biogas to generate electricity for additional plant energy load displacement, feed the local power grid, or transport it for off-site use. Excess biogas would be continued to be flared via a waste gas burner or sent to a boiler for combustion. 4-3 4.1.2 Biogas Storage Technologies Most of the biogas usage alternative options require on-site storage of biogas. The purpose of biogas storage for Options 1, 2 and 3 is to serve as a buffer tank that continuously accumulates excess gas that is not used. During off-peak hours, one cogen engine would operate and gas could accumulate in the gas storage vessel. During peak hours, two engines could operate in parallel and deplete the stored gas. Two types of on-site gas storage are commonly used in municipal sewage treatment plants: (1) constant volume, variable pressure storage; and (2) constant pressure, variable volume storage. The constant volume, variable pressure storage is essentially a medium to high pressure vessel that stores compressed gas, whereas the variable volume, constant pressure storage employs a mechanism that allows the expansion and contraction of storage volume. Within these two categories, three alternative technologies were chosen for evaluation based on their prevalence in North America and the available number of established manufacturers. The three technologies and the “No Storage” option are described below. Option A - Medium Pressure Gas Vessel A gas pressure vessel is a constant volume, variable pressure storage technology. Gas is typically compressed to between 10 to 50 psig (pound-force per square inch gauge) within the vessel. A pressure regulating valve is installed downstream of the gas pipe that slowly releases gas at the desirable operating pressure and flow to the cogeneration system. As stored gas in the tank becomes depleted, the pressure in the storage vessel decreases and eventually stops gas release when the pressure drops to below a given set point. Pressure vessels are made of steel or stainless steel and can be shaped as spheres, cylinders, or cones. Option A considers storing biogas at 30-40psi (200kPa to 276kPa) in a steel cylindrical pressure vessel. This system would require a compressor to compress biogas to the desired pressure level within the vessel. A cylindrical pressure vessel is being considered since it is more conventional and less conspicuous to passersby. FIGURE 9 A Spherical and Cylindrical Pressure Gas Vessel 4-4 Option B – Steel Gas Cover on a Concrete Tank A steel gas cover on a concrete tank is a constant pressure, variable volume storage technology. It stores gas in a concrete tank roofed with a floating steel gas cover. This is an established technology and is commonly seen in North America at municipal sewage treatment plants. This technology is typically used to retrofit existing digester roofs. This floating cover can have a shell-theory dome or radial beam structure. The roof moves up and down vertically along guide rails within the tank based on gas volume. Option B considers using a concrete tank with a steel gas cover that is designed specifically for gas storage through the application of a gas and water proofing layer. Biogas from the digester will be routed to the tank and the storage vessel will have the same internal gas pressure as the digesters. The biogas from the tank will then be fed to existing gas boosters and the gas treatment system and before reaching the cogeneration system. FIGURE 10 Examples of Concrete Tanks with Steel Gas Covers Source(s): Westech Engineering and Ovivo Option C - Double Membrane Storage The double membrane gas storage is a constant pressure, variable volume storage technology that has been available in the market for approximately fifteen years. The technology was originally developed in Europe for the farming industry where low cost biogas harvesting is a common practice. Due to its low cost, easy installation and low maintenance features, this technology has grown popular over the last decade and there are more than a hundred units installed worldwide. Its application in municipal sewage treatment plants for digester gas storage has also become more popular especially in the United States. However, there are no municipal installations in Canada. The storage consists of an external membrane which forms the outer shape of the vessel, and an internal membrane which stores the biogas. A permanently running air blower provides air to the space between inner and outer membrane to support the structure. The inner membrane gas holder inflates and deflates according to gas volume. This type of storage is available in two types of configuration: (1) a standalone unit mounted on a concrete slab; and (2) a semi-spherical dome that is mounted on a concrete tank which are shown in Figure 11. 4-5 FIGURE 11 Double Membrane Gas Storage Source: Westech Engineering Option D - “No Storage” Option This option is to “Do Nothing” and to not construct a biogas storage facility. This option would not allow the Barrie WwTF to maximize the usage of biogas. 4-6 5. Evaluation of Alternatives 5.1 Evaluation Methodology and Results To determine the preferred solution, the options for biogas usage and storage technologies were evaluated individually based on a series of quantitative and qualitative factors that reflect the technical, social/cultural, natural, and financial aspects of the environment. The factors considered are listed in Table 2. TABLE 2 Factors Considered for the Selection of Biogas Storage Technologies and Biogas Usage Options Aspect Question Factors to Consider 1 Technical Is the option technically feasible? 2 Social/Cultural What are the possible effects of the option on social and cultural factors in the area of the Barrie WwTF, and the surrounding community? 3 Natural What are the possible effects of the option on the natural environment? The likely environmental impacts of each alternative based on both the impacts of construction, as well as the impacts of continued operations and maintenance. The main environmental factors considered are impacts to aquatic and terrestrial systems, and air quality. 4 Financial What is the cost? The types of costs considered are capital costs, and operation and maintenance costs 4.Also financial risk and potential for cost savings/revenue are considered for biogas use options. 5.1.1 Factors considered are: the ease of implementation (on a technical, regulatory, and practical basis), the ease of maintenance, energy use, and system reliability The main factors considered are visual aesthetics, noise, impacts to uses around the plant; and human health and safety Selection of the Preferred Biogas Usage Option An evaluation of biogas usage options and operation strategies for the years of 2012 to 2023 to ensure optimum biogas usage of are provided in the “Biogas Utilization Facility Upgrade Strategy” Technical Memorandum provided in Appendix C. 4 Capital cost estimates for each biogas storage technology are based on budgetary proposals submitted by manufacturers. Maintenance costs were estimated based on electricity cost, and 5% of equipment capital cost. For detailed cost estimates please see Technical Memorandum the “Barrie WPCC Biogas Storage Alternatives” in Appendix C. 5-7 Based on the conclusions of the Technical Memorandum, Biogas Usage Option 3, which is a combination of both Options 1 and 2, is the most versatile option from a technical and financial standpoint. All biogas usage options with the exceptions of Options 4, 5 and 7, have similar social/cultural and environmental impacts because they involve the modification of cogen system controls and no major infrastructure undertakings (e.g. pipeline construction). Option 3 allows the WwTF to produce power to offset electricity costs during peak rate hours or sell power generated from one or both of the cogen engines under the FIT Program. Feedback from the Public Information Centre held on April 3, 2012 also confirmed that this option is most favourable with local residents. Option 3A which dedicates two cogen engines for either plant load displacement or for feeding power to the grid is preferred by the project team because electrical modifications are easier to implement. Each biogas usage option was further evaluated based on the factors listed in Table 2. Table 3 compares each option in regards to technical, social/cultural, natural and financial aspects. Diamonds (“♦”) were assigned to each option. The higher the number of “♦”s corresponds to the more favourable option. Each evaluation factor for each option can only receive a maximum of five “♦”s. Option 3 had the highest overall number of “♦”s and is thus the preferred biogas usage option. 5-8 4BEVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES TABLE 3 Comparison of Alternative Biogas Use Options Alternative 1 2 3 4 Description Offset additional plant power use with the electricity produced with biogas Participate in the Transition Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) Program to feed power to the local grid A combination of both (1) and (2) Transport gas off-site for use at the historic Allandale Train Station 5 Sell biogas or heated water to nearby apartment buildings 6 7 8 Produce hot water for internal WwTF heating Clean biogas and sell to natural gas supplier (i.e: Enbridge) Do Nothing Technical ♦♦♦♦ Social/Cultural ♦♦♦♦♦ Natural ♦♦♦♦ Financial ♦♦♦ Total “♦”s 16 (allows for additional cost savings) ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦ (site works needed) ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦ 16 (dependent on signing a FIT contract which presents some financial risk) ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ 17 (offers greatest flexibility and opportunity for cost savings) ♦ ♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ (piping infrastructure needed, reliability of supply is an issue) (aesthetic impacts and potential traffic impacts during construction) (impacts extend off-site) (has revenue generating potential but high capital costs) ♦ ♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ (piping infrastructure needed, reliability of supply is an issue) (aesthetic impacts and potential traffic impacts during construction) (impacts extend off-site) (has revenue generating potential but high capital costs) ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦ (no change from existing conditions) (little opportunity for additional cost savings) (similar to existing system to implement and maintain) ♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦♦ (piping infrastructure needed, reliability of supply is an issue) (aesthetic impacts and potential traffic impacts during construction) (impacts extend off-site) (has revenue generating potential but high capital costs) ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦ 9 9 16 10 14 (more gas flaring) COPYRIGHT 2012 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 5-9 5.1.2 Selection of the Preferred Biogas Storage Technology Each biogas storage technology was evaluated based on the factors listed in Table 2. Summary tables below compare each option in regards to the technical, social/cultural, natural and financial aspects. Diamonds (“♦”) were assigned to each option. The higher the number of “♦”s corresponds to the more favourable technology. Each evaluation factor for each technology option can only get a maximum of three “♦”s. Table 5 illustrates the overall number of “♦”s assigned to each biogas storage technology. TABLE 4A Technical Evaluation of Biogas Storage Technologies Option B - Steel Gas Cover on a Concrete Tank Option A - Medium Pressure Gas Vessel Evaluation Factor Option C - Double Membrane Storage Technology Maturity ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦ Code Compliance ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ System Reliability ♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ Frequency of Maintenance ♦ ♦ (high) ♦♦ (medium) Footprint (Land Area Requirement) ♦♦♦ (smallest footprint) ♦ ♦♦ Total number of “♦” 13 10 8 Additional details for this technical evaluation are described in detail the “Barrie WPCC Biogas Storage Alternatives” Technical Memorandum provided in Appendix C. COPYRIGHT 2012 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 5-1 TABLE 4B Social/Cultural Evaluation of Biogas Storage Technologies Option B - Steel Gas Cover on a Concrete Tank Option A - Medium Pressure Gas Vessel Evaluation Factor Option C - Double Membrane Storage Local Noise Impacts (Construction and Operation) ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦ Visual Impacts ♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ (greatest visual impact) Public Safety ♦♦♦ (greatest public safety) ♦♦ ♦ Impacts to Uses around the WwTF ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ Total number of “♦” 11 9 7 TABLE 4C Environmental Evaluation of Biogas Storage Technologies Option B - Steel Gas Cover on a Concrete Tank Option A - Medium Pressure Gas Vessel Evaluation Factor Option C - Double Membrane Storage Air Quality ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦ Aquatic Systems ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ Terrestrial Systems (Land footprint) ♦♦♦ (smallest footprint) ♦ ♦♦ Total number of “♦” 8 6 7 TABLE 4D Environmental Evaluation of Biogas Storage Technologies Option B - Steel Gas Cover on a Concrete Tank Option A - Medium Pressure Gas Vessel Evaluation Factor Option C - Double Membrane Storage Construction Cost ♦ ♦♦ ♦♦♦ (lowest cost) O&M Cost ♦ ♦♦♦ (lowest cost) ♦♦ Total number of “♦” 2 5 5 5-2 TABLE 5 Overall Evaluation of Biogas Storage Technologies Option B - Steel Gas Cover on a Concrete Tank Option A - Medium Pressure Gas Vessel Evaluation Aspects Option C - Double Membrane Storage Technical 13 10 8 Social/Cultural 11 9 7 Natural Environment 8 6 7 Economic 2 5 5 Total number of “♦” 34 30 27 Option A – Medium Pressure Gas Vessel has the highest number of “♦”overall; therefore it is the preferred biogas storage technology. 5-3 6. Recommended Solution After considering the technical, social/cultural, natural and financial aspects of biogas usage and storage options, the preferred alternative is Option 3A: Two Cogen Engines Feed Power to the Grid and/or for Plant Load Displacement. This usage option would be accompanied by a medium pressure gas vessel. The following sub-sections discuss the recommended solution in greater detail and Figure 5 is a schematic representation of the proposed solution. 6.1 Option 3A: Two Cogen Engines Feed Power to the Grid and/or for Plant Load Displacement Option 3A dedicates two cogen engines to offset additional plant power consumption with the electricity generated by the biogas, and can allow electricity to be fed to the local power grid as part of the FIT Program. This option would allow the operator to choose cogen power for use in plant load displacement, or feed to the grid at any given time. Since there is uncertainty as to when a FIT contract with the Ontario Power Authority will be signed, this choice would allow the City of Barrie use the electricity generated from the biogas for additional plant load displacement until FIT pricing is determined and contract is obtained. The existing uses of biogas such as the boilers and waste gas flare (which is a required safety device) will be maintained as necessary components of the recommended solution. The City of Barrie will continue to explore ways to optimize the collection and use of biogas through strategic operations as well as use the biogas for WwTF hydronic heating. 6.2 Option A: Medium Pressure Gas Vessel As part of this biogas usage option, horizontal medium pressurized steel vessel(s) and auxiliary buildings with enhanced security will be constructed for use as a gas buffer. From a technical perspective, a medium pressure gas vessel is a conventional gas storage structure commonly used for propane gas or liquefied gas storage. The technology is reliable and complies with all relevant codes and standards. It has low social impacts in regards to human health and safety, visual aesthetics, noise and footprint. The construction of a medium pressure gas vessel and the associated gas building (required to house equipment) at the proposed location on the parking lot at the southeast corner of the plant site, will be situated away from residential areas. There will also be minimal impacts on the natural environment since the site is already urbanized. It is noted that this technology has somewhat higher capital and O&M costs. Capital costs include the procurement of the gas vessel as well as the construction of the gas building and on-site gas piping to and from the storage. The high annual operating cost consists of gas compression which requires electricity and the replacement of compressor parts. However, operating cost reductions are possible by optimizing gas compression. 6-4 Figure 5 Schematic for the Recommended Solution 6-5 7. Recommended Solution Design 7.1 Biogas Handling and Storage Gas from the digesters will first be treated to remove hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and moisture to prevent corrosion of the biogas storage vessel walls. The storage vessel will be located downstream of the gas treatment, where treated gas will be compressed to 30 to 40psi (200kPa to 276kPa) with a rotary vane type of compressor. A pressure regulating valve will be installed at the discharge end of the storage, which regulates the gas pressure and controls the flow of gas entering the cogen system. A gas building will be required to house the compressors, gas protection equipment and the control panel. 7.2 System Control Modifications Some electrical interlocking with the operator interface will be required to allow the operator to select one of the two modes of operation: feed power to the grid or feed power to the plant switchgear through MCC (motor control centre) #6 for plant load displacement. This configuration requires a transfer switch to be installed in the existing breaker panel. Electrical work to be done would include installing: a step-up transformer from 600V to 4.16kV; a secondary metering unit rated at 600V; and installing cables from the cogen switchgear to the 4.16kV feeder on Bradford/Brock Street. Figure 6 presents an overview of the preferred biogas storage and cogeneration system modifications. FIGURE 6 Preferred Biogas Storage and System Control Modifications COPYRIGHT 2012 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 7-1 7.3 Upgraded Cogeneration Site Layout The medium pressure gas vessel and gas building will be constructed within the Barrie WwTF property boundaries (Figure 7). The facility will be situated on the asphalt parking lot at the southern end of the property near Lakeshore Drive. FIGURE 7 Proposed Location of the Biogas Storage Facility *Figure not drawn to scale 7-2 8. Effects and Mitigation 8.1 Potential Effects and Proposed Mitigation during Construction The effects of implementing the recommended solution along with proposed mitigation measures are discussed in the sub-sections below. Mitigation measures will be incorporated into design and contract requirements. 8.1.1 Construction Effects Construction will be on the south-east side of the WwTF property, away from residential areas, as well as Dyments and Hotchkiss Creeks. The installation of the biogas storage vessel, gas piping, and construction of the gas building will require minimal excavation. The location of the biogas storage facility will be constructed overtop a dismantled primary. Construction works and equipment laydown areas will be limited to paved areas within the WwTF property. Geotechnical aspects will be examined during detailed design to determine soil stability and whether local dewatering will be needed. Minimal dewatering is expected and any dewatering discharge is to comply with the City’s Site Alteration Permit and Sewer Use Bylaw. 8.1.2 Trucks and Traffic Effects Traffic impacts to Lakeshore Drive and Bradford Street are expected to be minimal. Construction activities will be located within WwTF property and large construction vehicles will be directed to established truck routes. The biogas storage structure will have sufficient clearance from the road in consideration of public safety and will adhere to Ontario Regulation 214/01 for compressed natural gas under the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000. 8.1.3 Noise Construction activities are expected to be completed in a timely manner. It is unlikely for construction noise to cause undue disturbance for local businesses and residents because of separation distances greater than 100 metres. Friction pile driving for deep foundations will not likely not be required, or avoided to minimize noise. Construction work will be limited to normal business hours and will comply with the City of Barrie’s Noise By-law. Normal working hours are restricted to 7am to 7pm and no work is permitted on Sundays unless otherwise approved by the City. If needed, other options will be considered to minimize noise. WB422564TOR COPYRIGHT 2012 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 8-1 8.1.4 Air Quality The nature of the construction activity is expected to have minimal impacts on existing air quality and is not expected to generate odour events. Construction vehicles will be properly maintained to reduce impacts to local air quality. 8.2 Potential Effects and Proposed Mitigation during Operation 8.2.1 Human Health and Safety Human health and safety near the biogas storage area is imperative. The biogas storage vessel will be installed on a firm foundation and protected by a strong enclosure. This is especially important due to the planned location of the facility near a main traffic intersection at Tiffin Street and Lakeshore Drive. Any safety devices or procedures required by the TSSA and other regulatory agencies at time of design, construction or commissioning will be incorporated into contract documents. 8.2.2 Noise Noise from the biogas compression and system will be minimal since a rotary vane compressor causes little to no noise or vibration. Also the compressor system will be enclosed in a building. The operation of an additional cogeneration engine will increase noise; however, the walls in the engine room are treated with sound insulation. Also the louvers in the room for HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) will be be acoustically treated so that noise will not be an issue for the nearby residences. A noise study was conducted and the results are provided in Appendix D. The Noise Study will be updated once construction has been completed. 8.2.3 Visual Aesthetics Compared to other dome-shaped gas storage structures, a cylindrical pressurized gas vessel is less visually conspicuous and easily concealable by planting trees around the perimeter of the WwTF. Landscaping will be part of detailed design. Reduced gas flaring would be an added improvement to visual aesthetics. If a FIT contract is obtained, additional wires will be added to the existing overhead power lines. Likely no additional hydropoles will be needed. 8-2 9. Public and Agency Consultation 9.1 Public Consultation The City of Barrie considered the Municipal Class EA process as the best approach to effectively communicate the project to the public and agencies. According to the requirements of a Schedule B municipal Class EA, proponents would contact relevant agencies and affected members of the public, who are given an opportunity to comment on or ask questions about the study, solution alternatives, and the preferred solution. A Notice of Commencement was published on March 24 and 29, 2012 in the Barrie Examiner. An information bulletin was hand delivered to approximately 100 nearby residents and businesses along Bradford Street and Tiffin Street, as well as the closest block of condominiums at 75 Ellen Street. The bulletin was also available at two public libraries in and at City Hall. The Notice of Commencement and information bulletin also served as an invitation to a Public Information Centre (PIC) at City Hall on April 3, 2012. A copy of the Notice of Commencement and information bulletin are provided in Appendix B. The PIC was attended by eight members of the public in addition to City of Barrie staff and consultants. Attendees were invited to complete a comment sheet or an online survey after the PIC session. PIC panels, the sign-in sheet and all comments received in hardcopy, online and by email before the May 1st deadline, are documented in Appendix B. Table 8 is a summary of all comments received and the corresponding project team responses. A letter providing a project update and the summary table of comments and responses was delivered to members of the public who attended the PIC. A copy of this letter is also provided in Appendix B. WB422564TOR COPYRIGHT 2012 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 9-1 Table 8 Comments and Responses Received from the PIC Name 1 2 Peter Bursztyn Anonymous (Member of the Public) Date April 3 April 3 Method of Communication Comment Sheet Comment Sheet Comment Response Displace additional plant power load & participate in the Provincial Feed-In-Tariff program are good ideas. FIT program is more profitable. Would like the project team to consider adding more organic material to increase the amount of biogas produced. Details emailed to Martin Shaw of the City of Barrie. Do something. Do not waste any more biogas plus build a windmill at the site. Sell gas for mixing will natural gas at 75 Ellen St (33-40%) to eliminate supply problems. The Public Information Centre did not help the member of the public better understand the need for the project. However the project makes sense and should go ahead to stop wasting biogas. Start a solar or wind project. Cool buildings using lake water. If the hydro grid goes down in Ontario or North America it would be good to have a local independent power generating plant. Noted. See response for comment #7 The City of Barrie is exploring alternative renewable energy systems where appropriate to support the establishment of a green economy as outlined in the Official Plan. Although the sale of gas this has been done elsewhere, the City would prefer to utilize the biogas internal to the WwTF. Solar and wind power are beyond the scope of this project however the City has entered into an agreement with Powerstream to place solar panels on various City facilities. The WwTF will be the first priority if the hydro grid goes down, however any extra power will likely be supplied to the grid. 3 L. Matheson (Resident near the WwTF) WB422564TOR April 3, 2012 Comment Sheet Feels that Option #3 is the best – use power to feed the power plant & feed the local grid. Does not want to store any biogas on the site close to his/her residence. COPYRIGHT 2012 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 9-1 The biogas storage vessel will be relatively small in size and situated away from residences. The proposed medium gas pressure vessel is a conventional technology that complies with Technical Standards and 4 Donna & Ryan Day (Resident near the WwTF) April 23 Comment Sheet A combination of both options (Displace additional plant power load & participate in the Provincial Feed-In-Tariff program) is the best suggestion as long as the Barrie WwTF is producing enough biogas to make both options viable. Agree that the preliminary preferred solution is the best option. It gives flexibility where needed yet still addresses all concerns. This combination of options seems feasible with little if any negative side effects. 5 6 Scott Tate Peter Lowry (Resident near the WwTF) April 3, 2012 April 4, 2012 Online Survey Online Survey If the City goes with the FIT Program, how will they get the excess electricity to the grid? Will extra power poles/lines have to be added to the area? The storage of the gas is the key concern. Maximum safety standards should be used especially recalling the major gas explosion a few years ago in Toronto. Such an explosion could wipe out blocks of homes. The burn-off must be scent free. Mr. Tate used to live next to the plant and states that on some days the smell was horrid. Pressure gas vessel can be considered as an alternative. Concrete tank with steel gas cover would be expensive and ugly (not a good option). Double membrane storage would be ideal if cost and approvals are acceptable. Displacing additional plant power load is ideal as Safety Authority requirements. To enable electricity to be fed to the power grid, electrical work to be done would include installing: a step-up transformer from 600V to 4.16kV; a secondary metering unit rated at 600V; and installing cables from the cogen switchgear to the 4.16kV feeder on Bradford/Brock Street. The biogas storage vessel will be relatively small in size and situated away from residences. The proposed medium gas pressure vessel is a conventional technology that complies with Technical Standards and Safety Authority requirements. From our research, the referenced accident was a result of a historic trend of unsafe practices by the firm with a much higher fuel content. Odours are related to different process areas in the plant. The cogeneration of biogas itself does not generate odour. All comments noted. The WwTF Operators will be given the opportunity to supply to the WwTF as first priority thus reducing the need to buy the higher priced electricity. Costs will be minimized and revenues will be maximized. 9-2 eventually the FIT funds would be less than the cost of energy. The FIT program does not make sense as a long-term solution. There is also an option where you can provide excess energy to the OPA grid in exchange for credits for electricity purchased at a later date. The WwTF is better off to maximize electrical production on the site to fill its own requirements while offering to pipe heated (and chilled) water, not required by the WwTF, to nearby private and public facilities. Pricing established for this service in the community is sustainable and can be locked in for extended periods to ensure full recovery of the investment involved. In some cases, the recipient of the water from the WwTF would be willing to pay for the piping requirements. The City is investigating the feasibility of piping hot water from the Barrie WwTF to the Allandale Train Station which will remain in public domain. Central heating and energy is under preliminary investigation by the City of Barrie. CHP operations are beyond the scope of this project. The study team needs to look at Community Heat and Power (CHP) operations such as in Markham, Ontario to see how the facilities can be useful in the community. The system in place does not seem to be taking the opportunity to produce hot or chilled water that can be of use on site as well as throughout the community. To offer the piped water from the facility is not only excellent public relations but it justifies the vital location of the WwTF. 7 Peter Bursztyn (Professor) April 4, 2012 Email Mr. Lowry offered his consulting services to help explain the value of what the WwTF offers the community. If the Barrie sewage processing facility can adjust the carbon/nitrogen ratio (by adding small quantities of shredded paper, straw or similarly low protein organic waste to the digester to optimize CH4 production), it could result in a 1% increase in methane, which could translate to a large amount of electricity and heat over a year’s operation. The methane to carbon dioxide ratio of the biogas can be tweaked by changing the feedstock in theory; however, in practice, even with high quantities of external sources, it only changes marginally, to the point where the real benefit is not the change in CH4:CO2 ratio, but the overall volume of biogas 9-3 If the incoming waste can be (cost effectively) warmed through indirect contact with finished digestate, this would leave more heat available for sale to nearby facilities like the Allandale Station or the neighbouring condo towers. The amount of CH4 produced by the sewage treatment plant can be substantially increased by increasing the organic load the plant receives with organics that would otherwise be shipped to Arthur for composting. A Citywide programme to encourage people to install garburators for kitchen waste could increase income from energy generation and reduce expenditures on curbside reduction and transportation. Does the Waukesha Gas Engines used to spin the generators incorporate heat recovery from the exhaust? It is hoped that this is incorporated into the sewage plant installation. produced. Future studies are being considered as to the viability of utilizing the warmer wastewater and finished digestate Adding external carbon (fats, oils, greases, etc.) directly to a digester is indeed an area of growing interest globally. While the addition of such material is not in the current project (and the digesters are not currently configured to allow such an input), it could be considered in the future but not necessarily at the WWTF. Regarding heat recovery from digestate, it was considered during the pre-design of the 76 ML/d expansion. However, not enough heat could be cost effectively recovered to make it viable. The Waukesha engines already incorporate heat recovery from exhaust. Regarding garburators, this could indeed increase the organic content of the raw sewage, meaning greater quantities of carbon ultimately going to the digester (with concomitant greater quantities of biogas produced. However, the major negative of increasing the raw sewage organic content is its impact on the liquid treatment process. At the Barrie WwTF, the liquid treatment train has been specifically designed to remove a number of contaminants, but arguably the most challenging is ammonia. The nitrifying 9-4 microorganisms that remove ammonia are slow growing compared to the organisms that remove organics from the liquid stream, and it is this lower growth rate of the nitrifiers that is critical to the design of liquid side tankage. If one was to increase the organic loading (e.g. via garburators), this would mean that an expansion to the liquid side tankage would be needed to maintain sufficient biomass retention time for ammonia removal. It is for this reason that most facilities that are attempting to increase biogas production are looking at ways to inject these supplemental organics directly into the digester (as described above). 8 Peter Bursztyn (Professor) April 24, 2012 Email Sent a report suggesting the City to consider incenting garburators to reduce green bin costs and increase gas production at the sewage treatment plant. The treatment process at the Barrie WwTF would have to be designed to be able to treat more organic material and there would be costs for increasing the WwTF’s ability to handle more gas. A cost evaluation has not yet been done to estimate the benefit of garburators in gas production at the plant per household per year to be able to provide incentives for their installation. If a $400 per household incentive were implemented it the cost for this program would be approximately $16,800,000 if every household participated. 9-5 9.2 Agency Consultation The Ministry of the Environment’s Renewable Energy Facilitation Office and Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch was contacted in August 2011, to clarify the approval requirements for the proposed biogas storage facility. It was determined that the biogas storage facility can be approved under an amended Certificate of Approval. The meeting minutes are attached in Appendix A as well as a follow-up email stating that project is classified as “Category A” under O. Reg. 116/01. The Technical Safety and Standards Authority (TSSA) was contacted in 2010 to confirm which digester systems conform to code CGA-B105-M93. During detailed design the project team will conduct preliminary consultation with TSSA to ensure that designs meet this code. A meeting with PowerStream was also held to discuss transmission line availability, connections, and metering options. The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority recommended that the project team ensure that electrical systems for the biogas storage facility be installed above the regulatory flood elevation. All agency comments are summarized in Table 9. TABLE 9 Comments and Responses Proponent Method of Communication Comment Response Technical Safety and Standards Authority Email in 2010 Preliminary consultation with the TSSA is recommended during detailed design. Acknowledged Meeting in Winter 2010 Recommended that the City connects the cogeneration power to the 4.16kV transmission grid. Acknowledged PowerStream Ministry of the Environment Email and meeting at MOE offices in Fall 2011, and email in Fall 2012 Since the facility (Barrie WwTF) is already operational producing electricity and has an existing Certificate of Approval it meets the REA (Renewable Energy Approval) exemption requirements in O.Reg. 359/09 section 9 (1) 4 and continues to be subject to C of A requirements. The existing C of A should be amended to reflect the proposed changes including the storage facility. Acknowledged The Barrie Biogas Utilization Upgrades Project as a “Category A” project defined in O. Reg. 116/01 does not require approval under the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act based on the section 2(1) (b) of O. Reg. 116/01. WB422564TOR COPYRIGHT 2012 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 9-1 TABLE 9 Comments and Responses Proponent Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Method of Communication Comment Response Email Spring 2012 and phone call Electrical systems in accessory structures shall be installed so that the main electrical panel is located above the regulatory flood elevation. All other electrical equipment not located above the regulatory flood elevation shall be flood-proofed where possible. Acknowledged 9-2 10. Conclusions 10.1 Project Summary The City of Barrie would like to continue minimizing its environmental footprint by fully utilizing the energy potential of the biogas produced from the Barrie WwTF. The Barrie Biogas Utilization project is a “Category A” project defined in O.Reg. 116/01 and therefore does not require approval under the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act. However, a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment study was undertaken to evaluate whether the project would have a significant environmental effect, and to communicate the project to the public. The preferred solution is to enable the WwTF to offset additional plant power consumption with the electricity generated by the biogas as well as feed electricity to the local power grid as part of the FIT Program. This would involve the construction of medium pressure gas vessels and the associated gas building at the southeast corner of the plant site, along with the modification of cogen engine controls. Key effects to the technical, social/cultural, natural and financial aspects of the environment, in addition to mitigation measures during construction and operation, have been identified. Public and agency feedback has also been considered in the selection of the recommended solution. The estimated cost for the biogas utilization upgrades is approximately $2 million dollars. 10.2 Project Implementation Strategy The recommended solution involves installing on-site gas storage vessels and tie-in of two cogen engines to run in parallel. It is proposed that the upgrade work be conducted in two stages. Stage 1 would consist of control system modifications so that the engines can operate in parallel when there is a peak production of biogas. Stage 2 would involve the completion of technical feasibility studies as part of the detailed design of the recommended storage technology. Detailed biogas facility upgrade designs will incorporate mitigation measures outlined in this Project Screening Report. All permits and approvals identified during pre-consultation activities with agencies will be obtained prior to tendering and construction. 10-3 10.3 Concluding Remarks The City of Barrie would like to maintain maximum design and operational flexibility to ensure optimal use of biogas in accordance with the project’s problem statement and the alternative scenarios identified in the report. Although the preferred solution has been identified, alternative designs, equipment layouts and operational scenarios which are outlined in the report may be preferred or modified, as the case may be, depending on changing factors or unforeseens such as premature or unexpected failure of existing equipment, whether a FIT contract is granted by the OPA, the price paid under the FIT contract, soil or foundation conditions, future gas quality and actual volumes of gas generated in the future etc. The City also reserves the right to enter into or withdraw from the FIT program in the future depending on whether there is a net benefit to the city. 10-4 11. Works Cited C.C. Tatham and Associates. (2011). Hotchkiss Creek Watershed Master Drainage Plan EA Update. City of Barrie. CH2M HILL. (2004). City of Barrie Water Pollution Control Centre: Long Term Wastewater Treatment Strategy. City of Barrie. City of Barrie. (2011). City of Barrie Official Plan 2010 . City of Barrie. Santos, N., & Keyvani, M. (2011, August 9). Ontario Ministry of the Environment. (CH2M HILL, Interviewer) The City of Barrie. (2004). Water Pollution Control Centre Pamphlet. Retrieved from The City of Barrie: http://www.barrie.ca/Living/Environment/WastewaterTreatment/Documents/WaterPol lutionControlCentrePamphlet.pdf WB422564TOR COPYRIGHT 2012 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 11-1 Appendix A Agency Consultation MEETING AGENDA Barrie WPCC Biogas Utilization Upgrades MOE Consultation Meeting Minutes ATTENDEES: Narren Santos, MOE Mohsen Keyvani, MOE Carolyn Lee, CH2M HILL BY TELECONFERENCE: Jennifer Heneberry, REFO Sinclair Garner, CH2M HILL Jessica Peters-Palfi, CH2M HILL Martin Shaw, City of Barrie MEETING DATE: Tuesday, August 9, 2011 MEETING TIME: 10:00am - 11:00am DIAL-IN INFORMATION: 1-866-602-5461 (Passcode 9312694 #) 2 St. Clair Avenue West 12th Floor Boardroom VENUE: Agenda Item Discussion 1. Introductions 2. Project Overview 3. Approval Process • Sinclair Garner of CH2M HILL provided background information about the Barrie WPCC and the need for the current biogas storage project. A FIT application was submitted in December 2011. • Jennifer Heneberry of REFO indicated that the next round of OPA contract applications will start December 7 2011 (cut-off date not known yet). An OPA contract could take 6 months to obtain. • CH2M Hill confirmed that there is a MOE C of A for the Barrie WPCC which includes the cogeneration engines in a duty/standby configuration and that the plant is already producing electricity. • Mohsen Keyvani of the MOE stated that as the facility is already operational producing electricity and has an existing Certificate of Approval it meets the REA exemption requirements in O.Reg. 359/09 section 9 (1) 4 and continues to be subject to C of A requirements. The existing C of A should be amended to reflect the proposed changes including the storage facility. • Off-site transport of boiler hot water to the Allandale train station would not be covered in an REA. • Narren Santos of the MOE suggested speaking to a Project Evaluator duty officer for the Class Environmental Assessment requirements and a wastewater environmental approvals duty officer for C of A amendment requirements. • Jennifer Heneberry of REFO confirmed that even though the FIT application has not yet been reviewed, a time stamp verifying that the application was submitted before December 31, 2010 determines project eligibility under the Transition Option. The FIT program only requires an environmental approval between the time of securing an electricity purchase contract and construction. 4. Next Steps and Recommendations 5. Other Items The meeting was adjourned at 10:30am. 2 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Liu, Chunmei (ENE) Lee, Carolyn/TOR Panko, Dan (ENE); Keyvani, Mohsen (ENE); Santos, Narren (ENE) RE: Barrie Biogas Storage Project - Class EA requirements Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:11:54 AM Dear Ms. Carolyn, Further to our phone conversation, we have reviewed your inquiry based on the information provided on the City of Barrie’s website. The following comments are provided for consideration. The Barrie Biogas Utilization Upgrades Project as a “Category A” project defined in O. Reg. 116/01 does not require approval under the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act based on the section 2(1) (b) of O. Reg. 116/01. The Municipal Class EA does not apply to the Barrie Biogas Utilization Upgrades Project as the proposed facility is not functioning as standby power equipment. The proposed activities will be subject to the Environmental Compliance Approvals under the Environmental Protection Act. We would also like to remind you that the EA Act may apply to the project even through the project is exempted from O. Reg. 116/01. If there are significant environmental effects associated with the project, the Minister could designate it as being subject to an individual EA under the EA Act and the public has also a right to submit their requests to the Minister for elevation of the project. If you have any question regarding these comments, please feel free to contact undersigned. Chunmei Liu | Environmental Resource Planner | Environmental Assessment Coordinator Central Region, Ontario Ministry of the Environment | 5775 Yonge Street, 8th Flr | Toronto, Ontario M2M 4J1 Tel: 416-326-4886 | Fax: 416-325-6347 | Email: Chunmei.Liu@ontario.ca | Website: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/ P Please consider the environment before printing this email From: Carolyn.Lee@ch2m.com [mailto:Carolyn.Lee@ch2m.com] Sent: August 27, 2012 3:26 PM To: Liu, Chunmei (ENE) Cc: Keyvani, Mohsen (ENE); Santos, Narren (ENE) Subject: FW: Barrie Biogas Storage Project - Class EA requirements Hello Ms. Liu, Here is some information regarding the Barrie Biogas Utilization Upgrades Project http://www.barrie.ca/living/environment/pages/environmentalassessmentstudies.aspx The City has been following a Schedule B wastewater project Class EA and would like to know if the project qualifies as a Schedule A municipal Class EA for electricity projects (O.Reg 116/01). The minutes from the meeting last year with Narren Santos and Mohsen Keyvani are attached. Thank you very much. Carolyn Lee, M.Sc. Water Business Group CH2M HILL Canada Limited 245 Consumers Road Toronto, ON, M2J 1R3 Direct: 416.499.0090 ext.73664 Fax: 416.499.4687 www.ch2mhill.com From: Keyvani, Mohsen (ENE) [mailto:Mohsen.Keyvani@ontario.ca] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 12:11 PM To: Lee, Carolyn/TOR Cc: Liu, Chunmei (ENE); Santos, Narren (ENE) Subject: RE: Barrie Biogas Storage Project - Class EA requirements Hi Carolyn, To answer your question, please contact Ms. Chunmei Liu at 416-326-4886 or by e-mail: chunmei.liu@ontario.ca. Ms. Chunmei is the Environmental Resource Planner & EA Coordinator at the MOE Central Region Office and I have copied her on this e-mail. Regards…Mohsen Mohsen Keyvani, P. Eng. Senior Waste Engineer Approval Services Environmental Approvals Branch Ministry of the Environment 2 St. Clair Avenue West, 12th Floor Toronto, ON, M4V 1L5 Phone: 416-326-6095 Fax: 416-314-8452 E-mail: mohsen.keyvani@ontario.ca From: Carolyn.Lee@ch2m.com [mailto:Carolyn.Lee@ch2m.com] Sent: August 23, 2012 9:40 AM To: Keyvani, Mohsen (ENE) Subject: Barrie Biogas Storage Project - Class EA requirements Hello Mr. Keyvani, Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. I would like to know if the Class EA requirements for the Barrie Biogas Utilization Upgrades project should follow a Schedule B Municipal Class EA process for wastewater projects or a Schedule A Municipal Class Assessment for electricity projects (O.Reg 116/01). Thanks again for your help. Best regards, Carolyn Lee, M.Sc. Water Business Group CH2M HILL Canada Limited 245 Consumers Road Toronto, ON, M2J 1R3 Direct: 416.499.0090 ext.73664 Fax: 416.499.4687 www.ch2mhill.com From: Santos, Narren (ENE) [mailto:Narren.Santos@ontario.ca] Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:01 AM To: Heneberry, Jennifer (ENERGY); Lee, Carolyn/TOR; Garner, Sinclair/BAR; Peters-Palfi, Jessica/TOR; mshawe@barrie.ca Cc: Fahey, Nathan (ENERGY); gking@barrie.ca; Keyvani, Mohsen (ENE) Subject: RE: MOE Meeting Minutes - Barrie Biogas Storage Project Good morning: Thanks for forwarding us the meeting minutes. Please see below for MOE’s comments. Mohsen Keyvani of the MOE stated that as the facility is already operational producing electricity and has an existing Certificate of Approval it meets the REA exemption requirements in O.Reg. 359/09 section 9 (1) 4 and continues to be subject to C of A requirements. The existing C of A should be amended to reflect the proposed changes including the storage facility. Off-site transport of boiler hot water to the Allandale train station would not be covered in an REA. Narren Santos of the MOE suggested speaking to a Project Evaluator duty officer for the Class Environmental Assessment requirements and a wastewater environmental approvals duty officer for C of A amendment requirements. Thanks! Narren Santos│Senior Program Support Coordinator │Renewable Energy Team│ Environmental Assessment & Approvals Branch│Ministry of the Environment│2 St. Clair Avenue West, 12a Floor Toronto, ON M4V 1L5│Phone: 416.314.8442 │Fax: 416.314.6810 │Email: narren.santos@ontario.ca│ P Please consider the environment before printing this email note. IMPORTANT NOTICE: The information contained in this correspondence is confidential and intended for the use of the individual(s) named above. Unauthorized reproduction and/or distribution is prohibited. From: Heneberry, Jennifer (ENERGY) Sent: August 10, 2011 3:22 PM To: 'Carolyn.Lee@ch2m.com'; Santos, Narren (ENE); Keyvani, Mohsen (ENE); Sinclair.Garner@ch2m.com; Jessica.Peters-Palfi@ch2m.com; mshawe@barrie.ca Cc: Fahey, Nathan (ENERGY); gking@barrie.ca Subject: RE: MOE Meeting Minutes - Barrie Biogas Storage Project Hi there: Thanks for sending these out, Carolyn. Just two quick clarifications for your notes: 1. A contract from the OPA could take 6 months as indicated in your notes, since this was the time period needed to prepare the last round of applications for contracts. It could also take more or less time. 2. With regard to the information in the next steps section, the FIT contract process is divided into phases. The successful completion of the required environmental approvals is one of the milestones that a project developer will need to complete before they apply for and receive Notice to Proceed (NTP) from the OPA – obtaining NTP will give the ok for construction to begin. Although a project developer cannot apply for NTP until after they have received and executed a contract, they do have the option of beginning work on the environmental approval work even without a FIT contract in place. However, proceeding with this work without a contract can pose more risk to the developer. Waiting for a contract to be offered before beginning the environmental work will provide more certainty that the project is going forward and on what timeline. Please let me know if you have further questions I can assist with. Jennifer Heneberry Senior Project Advisor Renewable Energy Facilitation Office Ministry of Energy 880 Bay St., 2nd Floor Toronto, ON M7A 2C1 416.212.7717 | jennifer.heneberry@ontario.ca NOTICE: Confidentiality obligations relating to records or information in this communication are governed by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and the Green Energy Act, 2009 (GEA). According to section 12 of the GEA, records or information in this communication are deemed, for the purposes of section 17 of FIPPA, to have been supplied by the proponent in confidence to you or your institution. In the interests of maintaining confidentiality, consult your Freedom of Information Coordinator or Legal Services Branch before disclosing this information to other parties. Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: Carolyn.Lee@ch2m.com [mailto:Carolyn.Lee@ch2m.com] Sent: August 10, 2011 2:38 PM To: Santos, Narren (ENE); Heneberry, Jennifer (ENERGY); Keyvani, Mohsen (ENE); Sinclair.Garner@ch2m.com; Jessica.Peters-Palfi@ch2m.com; mshawe@barrie.ca Cc: Fahey, Nathan (ENERGY); gking@barrie.ca Subject: MOE Meeting Minutes - Barrie Biogas Storage Project Hello Everyone, Thank you for participating in yesterday’s meeting. I have attached the meeting minutes to this message. Please review the minutes and notify me of any errors or omissions. Best regards, Carolyn Lee Carolyn Lee, M.Sc. Water Business Group CH2M HILL Canada Limited 255 Consumers Road Toronto, ON, M2J 5B6 Direct: 416.499.0090 ext.73664 Fax: 416.499.4687 www.ch2mhill.com -----Original Appointment----From: Santos, Narren (ENE) [mailto:Narren.Santos@ontario.ca] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 9:50 AM To: Santos, Narren (ENE); Lee, Carolyn/TOR; Heneberry, Jennifer (ENERGY); Keyvani, Mohsen (ENE) Cc: Peters-Palfi, Jessica/TOR; Garner, Sinclair/BAR; Fahey, Nathan (ENERGY) Subject: Updated: New Time Proposed: Meeting with Carolyn, Mohsen & Mirrun Re: CH2M Hill Canada When: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:00 AM-11:00 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: 12th floor boardroom - 2 St. Clair Avenue West Update: Teleconference information for those who are calling in. Teleconference Number (local): 416-212-8011 Teleconference Number (long distance): 1-866-602-5461 Participant Passcode: 9312694 # Hi Carolyn: Thank you for your schedule update. As requested, we can reschedule the preconsultaiton meeting, however our earliest availablity is on Tuesday Aug.9. Please advise of your availabity. Regards, Narren Teleconference Number (local): 416-212-8011 Teleconference Number (long distance): 1-866-602-5461 Participant Passcode: 9312694 # <<REA Preconsultation Meeting Form July 18.docx>> << File: REA Preconsultation Meeting Form July 18.docx >> Appendix B Public Consultation 70 Collier Street P.O. Box 400 Barrie, Ontario L4M 4T5 Barrie.ca Class Environmental Assessment - Barrie Water Pollution Control Centre Biogas Utilization Upgrades NOTICE OF STUDY OF COMMENCEMENT AND INVITATION TO A PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE The City of Barrie has been utilizing biogas (methane) produced from the Barrie Water Pollution Control Centre (WPCC) anaerobic wastewater sludge digesters to generate electricity and capture heat through cogeneration since 1996. The City is interested in exploring options available for utilizing all biogas produced at the WPCC to p ower the cogeneration system in order to gain optimum financial and environmental benefits. As part of this study, the City of Barrie would like to utilize more of the available biogas by constructing a new biogas storage facility. WPCC 249 Bradford Street The Study The City of Barrie is initiating a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) to explore different methods of gas storage and cogeneration power utilization. The study will follow Schedule B of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process (as amended October 2007), and will satisfy the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. The Class EA will define the issues to be addressed, identify feasible alternatives, evaluate the technical, natural, social/ cultural, and economic impacts of the alternatives, and recommend a p referred solution. The Class EA process provides members of the public and agencies with opportunities to comment on the project and requires that all comments are appropriately addressed and documented for the public record. To provide further information on the Class EA process, background information on the study, and to receive input from interested persons, the City of Barrie will be holding Public Information Centre as follows: Tuesday, April 3, 2012 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. City Hall Rotunda, 70 Collier Street City Hall 70 Collier Street If you require accommodations to fully participate in this meeting, please contact The City of Barrie at 705-739-4220 ext: 5237 with your specific requirements. Public and agency consultation is a key component of the Class EA process. All those with an interest in the project are encouraged to attend the public information forum and submit comments during the study. Comments may be submitted by contacting either the City’s Project Manager or Project Coordinator at the addresses listed below. Graeme King, P.Eng. Project Manager The City of Barrie 70 Collier Street, Box 400 Barrie, ON L4M 4T5 Phone: 705-739-4220, Ext. 4532 Fax: 705-739-4243 Martin Shaw, P.Eng. Project Coordinator The City of Barrie 70 Collier Street, Box 400 Barrie, ON L4M 4T5 Phone: 705-739-4220, Ext. 5242 Fax: 705-739-4243 Please note that comments will be maintained for reference throughout the project and will become part of the public record. Under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) and the Environmental Assessment Act, any personal information such as name, address and telephone number included in a submission will become part of the public record unless the commenter specifically requests that such personal details not be included in the public record. This notice was issued on March 24 (as a correction to March 22) and 29, 2012. Barrie WPCC Biogas Utilization Upgrades March 21, 2012 Info Bulletin Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment Introduction The City of Barrie has initiated a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study to explore options for storing surplus biogas currently being produced at the Barrie Water Pollution Control Centre (WPCC) for use in generating additional electricity. Alternative solutions are now being developed. This information bulletin provides a summary of the key project activities and recommendations to date. Background The Cogeneration Process Biogas (primarily methane gas) is a by-product of wastewater sludge treatment in anaerobic digesters. Treated or stabilized sludge, known as biosolids are then transported off-site. The biogas produced by microorganisms in the digesters is currently burned at the WPCC to generate electrical power to operate the plant, and heat to warm the WPCC in the winter. This process is known as cogeneration. Currently, the electricity produced from biogas can offset plant power purchase from the local power grid by 30 to 40%. As the plant continues to expand to serve the growing population, the production of biogas will continue to increase offering more energy and cost saving potential. The Barrie WPCC has been utilizing biogas from its anaerobic digesters through cogeneration since 1996. The WPCC has gone through a number of enhancements and capacity increases which allow the digesters to produce enough biogas to generate electricity to offset a portion of the WPCC energy demands. The surplus biogas produced is currently flared through a waste gas burner. In order to harness the full energy potential of the surplus biogas, the City of Barrie is exploring options to construct a new biogas storage facility at the WPCC, and operational adjustments to the existing control system of the two existing cogeneration (cogen) engines based on how the electricity generated will be used. Reason for Class EA A Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment study is being undertaken in order to determine the preferred biogas storage technology and usage options to optimize energy recovery from biogas with the existing cogeneration system at the WPCC. Class Environmental Assessment Process This study is being conducted in accordance with the requirements for Schedule B projects as described in the Municipal Engineers Association document titled Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended 2007). A Schedule B project requires that the following phases of the Class EA process be completed prior to detailed design and construction: • Phase 1: Definition of the problem or need; and • Phase 2: Identification and assessment of alternative solutions and selection of a preferred solution Phase 1 has been completed. The need for the study is defined above as being the goal to optimize energy recovery from biogas and thereby reduce energy costs. The project team is currently undertaking Phase 2 of this study, including consultation with the public and government review agencies. Consultation with the public, government review agencies and other relevant stakeholders is an important part of the Class EA process. A notice of study commencement is being published in the local Barrie newspaper on March 22 and 29, 2012. The assessment of alternatives and results will be documented in a Schedule B Screening Report at the end of Phase 2. Existing Conditions Surrounding Land Uses The WPCC is located near the shores of the southwest end of Kempenfelt Bay at 249 Bradford Street. Bradford Street borders the WPCC to the west, with Lakeshore Drive to the east, and Hotchkiss Creek to the south. Dyment’s Creek delineates the north end of the property. The site is bordered by residential and commercial buildings to the north, west and south. Bordering the eastern end is Centennial Park which contains a trail system and parking lots. Natural Environment The vegetation at the Barrie WPCC consists of mature trees and manicured grasses. The landscaping within the property of the WPCC contains hills and berms with drainage swales along the outer perimeter. Dyment’s Creek and a swale in the northern portion of the property leads to an online man-made pond surrounded by a grassy area. The area around the pond is considered open space within the City Centre. Wildlife at the site consists of species that are typical of urban environments. The online, man-made pond is part of Dyment’s Creek. Dyment’s Creek waters enters the WPCC site from the west and flows easterly towards Kempenfelt Bay. Hotchkiss Creek flows easterly to Kempenfelt Bay and was recently naturalized by the City. Drainage from the WPCC property generally flows towards Kempenfelt Bay. Alternative Solutions The biogas utilization upgrade alternatives consist of two parts: (1) biogas usage options and (2) biogas storage options. Biogas Usage Options Biogas usage options include consideration of a variety of cogeneration engine operation configurations to allow the cogeneration system to displace additional plant power load, feed electricity to the local power grid, or accomplish both. Seven biogas usage options are being considered: 1 Offset additional plant power use with the electricity produced with biogas; 2 Participate in the Transition Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) Program to feed power to the local grid; 3 A combination of both (1) and (2); 4 Transport gas off-site for use at the Allandale Train Station; 5 Selling biogas or heated water to nearby highrises; 6 Producing hot water for internal WPCC heating; or 7 Cleaning of biogas and selling to natural gas supplier (ie: Enbridge) 8 Do nothing. Biogas Usage Options (continued) Option 1: The plant’s current practice is to continuously run one 250 kW cogeneration engine to offset plant power consumption during off-peak (electrical price) hours. Under Option 1, one cogen engine would operate and excess biogas gas would accumulate in the biogas storage vessel. During peak hours, two engines would operate in parallel and utilize the stored biogas to generate electricity. Option 2: The Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) Program is a highlight of the Green Energy Act, 2009 implemented by Ontario Power Authority (OPA) in September 2009. The program encourages independent power generators to produce electricity using renewable energy sources by providing a guaranteed pricing structure for renewable energy production over a contract term of 20 years. If the application is approved, the City could elect to sell electricity from the cogen engine(s) to the grid and then receive remuneration in accordance with the FIT program. The City could potentially sell electricity at a higher cost than it purchases electricity. The City has applied for a FIT contract and is awaiting further information as to approvals and pricing. Option 3: With improved flexibility to the cogen controls and biogas storage, a combination of Options 1 and 2 could be made available to the WPCC. This will allow the City to optimize the value of the biogas for various times of the day by either; (1) offsetting additional plant power consumption (load displacement) and/or (2) participate in the Transition Feed-In-Tariff Program to feed power to the local grid. Option 4: The City has investigated the conveyance of biogas for use at the Historic Allandale Train Station. This scenario was not feasible due to space limitations for a dual fire boiler in the three buildings. Also, the complexity involved in conveying the gas would provide challenges to meeting the requirements under the Technical Standards and Safety Act and require specialized training and licensing. However, provisions have been made at the Historic Allandale Train Station to incorporate hot water heating. Option 5: The City considered the possibility of conveying biogas to heat nearby private apartment buildings as an alternative to natural gas. The City would have to take on the added responsibility of cleaning the biogas to meet natural gas quality and would have to enter into commitments to ensure consistency in flow. Option 6: The WPCC currently utilizes hot water heated by biogas or natural gas. The anticipated future biogas volumes will be considered during the design phases of any future process and/or building expansions. Option 7: The do-nothing option, would imply that increasing amounts of biogas will be wasted with an associated energy value of approximately $100,000 per year without a FIT contract in place and substantially more with a FIT contract in place. Biogas Storage Options The purpose of biogas storage is to store surplus biogas for later use instead of flaring or utilizing boilers and wasting the heat generated. Biogas storage options being considered are: • A pressurized steel vessel(s); • A concrete tank with a steel gas cover; • Double Membrane Storage and • No storage Preliminary Preferred Solution Taking into account technical, social/cultural, environmental, and cost considerations, the preliminary preferred solution is to construct a pressurized gas vessel and modify the cogeneration system controls to allow the system to either offset additional plant power load or to participate in the provincial FIT program based on future energy prices. For More Information The City of Barrie wishes to obtain input from the community on the Preliminary Preferred Solution and is hosting a Public Information Centre on: Tuesday, April 3, 2012 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Barrie City Hall Rotunda, 70 Collier Street. Find out more about the project and the EA process during the noted times to talk to City of Barrie project staff. All input will be carefully considered before the preferred solution for the Barrie Biogas Utilization Upgrades project is recommended to City Council. You can read all available documents with regard to this project at the City of Barrie website : Barrie.ca and search “Environmental Assessment Studies”. You can provide comments, concerns, questions or suggestions regarding the identified preliminary preferred solution, by filling out the Response Survey attached to this bulletin and sending it to the project contacts listed at the bottom of this page, or by submitting your response online from the project web page: www.surveymonkey.com/s/barriewpcc. Next Steps Once the Preferred Solution is selected, the study process will be documented in a Schedule B Screening Report and presented to Council for ratification. Pending acceptance of the Preferred Solution by Council, the Schedule “B” Screening Report will be available for public comment for a period of 30 days at the following locations: • City Hall, 70 Collier Street, 4th and 6th floors • Barrie Public Library Downtown Branch, 60 Worsley Street Painswick Branch, 48 Dean Avenue The public will be notified of the start of this review period with the publishing of a Notice of Completion in the local paper and the City of Barrie website. Project Contacts Martin Shaw Project Coordinator The City of Barrie 70 Collier Street, Box 400 Phone: (705) 739-4220 x5242 Fax: (705) 739-4243 Email: mshaw@barrie.ca Graeme King Project Manager The City of Barrie 70 Collier Street, Box 400 Phone: (705) 739-4220 x4532 Fax: (705) 739-4243 Email: gking@barrie.ca 3XEOLF,QIRUPDWLRQ&HQWUH %DUULH:DWHU3ROOXWLRQ&RQWURO&HQWUH %LRJDV8WLOL]DWLRQ8SJUDGHV %DUULH&LW\+DOO5RWXQGD 7XHVGD\$SULOUG 3UHSDUHGIRU 3UHSDUHGE\ :HOFRPH :HOFRPHWRWKH%DUULH:3&&%LRJDV8WLOL]DWLRQ 8SJUDGHV3XEOLF,QIRUPDWLRQ&HQWUH 3OHDVHVLJQLQUHYLHZWKHGLVSOD\PDWHULDOVDQGILOORXWD FRPPHQWIRUP 7KH&LW\RI%DUULH6WDIIDQGVWXG\FRQVXOWDQWVDUHDYDLODEOHWR GLVFXVVWKHVWXG\DQVZHUTXHVWLRQVDQGUHFHLYH\RXU FRPPHQWV <RXULQSXWLVDSSUHFLDWHG 3URMHFW%DFNJURXQG 7KH&LW\RI%DUULHDLPVWRPLQLPL]HLWVHQYLURQPHQWDO N The Location of the Barrie WPCC The Barrie WPCC in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ity of Barrie Population 1981 1991 2001 2006 2023 43,452 62,728 110,000 128,430 210,000 ([LVWLQJ(QYLURQPHQWDO)HDWXUHV Bradford Street %DUULH:3&&([LVWLQJ6LWH/D\RXW %DUULH:3&&3URSRVHG6LWH3ODQ :DVWHZDWHU7UHDWPHQW3URFHVV ,QWHUPHGLDWHSXPSLQJDQGUHF\FOLQJVWUHDPVDUHQRWVKRZQLQWKLVIORZGLDJUDP ([LVWLQJ%LRJDV8WLOL]DWLRQDQG&KDOOHQJHV 7KH&RJHQHUDWLRQ6\VWHPDWWKH%DUULH:3&& Waste Heat (Effluent Water) N: %RLOHU PRIELRJDVLVSURGXFHGHDFKGD\ 7KHELRJDVFDQEHVHQWWRWKHERLOHUVWR SURGXFHKHDWRUWRWKHFRJHQHUDWLRQ HQJLQHVIRUHOHFWULFLW\JHQHUDWLRQ7ZR N:HQJLQHVUXQLQDGXW\VWDQGE\ PRGH7KHFRVWRISURGXFLQJHOHFWULFLW\ LVN:K Engine 2 N: %RLOHU Engine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ource: Ovivo Source: WesTech Engineering %LRJDV6WRUDJH7HFKQRORJLHV&RQWLQXHG F 'RXEOH0HPEUDQH*DV6WRUDJH $GRPHVKDSHGVWUXFWXUHPDGHRI39&FRDWHGSRO\HVWHUIDEULF$Q H[WHUQDOGRPHFRYHUVDQLQQHUGRPHWKDWH[SDQGVRUFRQWUDFWVEDVHG RQJDVYROXPH$QDLUEORZHUSURYLGHVDLUWRWKHVSDFHEHWZHHQLQQHU DQGRXWHUPHPEUDQH,WFDQEHDVWDQGDORQHXQLWPRXQWHGRQD FRQFUHWHRUVHPLVSKHULFDOGRPHWKDWLVPRXQWHGRQDFRQFUHWHWDQN Source: WesTech Engineering 6WRUDJH7HFKQRORJ\(YDOXDWLRQ 7KHWKUHHWHFKQRORJLHVZHUHHYDOXDWHGDFFRUGLQJWRWKHFULWHULDOLVWHGEHORZ7KH KLJKHUWKHQXPEHURI³i i´WKHPRUHIDYRUDEOHWKHWHFKQRORJ\ D 0HGLXP3UHVVXUH 6WHHO*DV 9HVVHO E6WHHO*DV&RYHU &RQVWUXFWLRQ&RVW i ii 20&RVW i iii iii ORZHVWFRVW ii iii iii ii (YDOXDWLRQ&ULWHULD 7HFKQRORJ\0DWXULW\ F'RXEOH0HPEUDQH6WRUDJH iii JUHDWHVWSXEOLFVDIHW\ iii ii i iii i iii i ii i KLJK i ii PHGLXP )RRWSULQW/DQG$UHD 5HTXLUHPHQW iii VPDOOHVWIRRWSULQW i ii 7RWDOQXPEHURI³i´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reen Energy and Economy Act$FRPSRQHQWRIWKH *UHHQ(QHUJ\$FWLVWKH)HHG,Q7DULII),73URJUDPZKLFKZDVLPSOHPHQWHGE\WKH2QWDULR3RZHU $XWKRULW\23$LQ6HSWHPEHU7KHSURJUDPHQFRXUDJHVLQGHSHQGHQWJHQHUDWRUVWRSURGXFH HOHFWULFLW\XVLQJUHQHZDEOHHQHUJLHVZLQGVRODUK\GURDQGELRPDVVE\SURYLGLQJDJXDUDQWHHGSULFLQJ VWUXFWXUHIRUUHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\SURGXFWLRQRYHUDFRQWUDFWWHUPRI\HDUV7KH&LW\RI%DUULHZRXOGOLNH WRWDNHDGYDQWDJHRIWKLVSURJUDPDVLWLVLQOLQHZLWKWKH&LW\RI%DUULH¶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isplace Plant Power Load Switchgear Feed to Power Grid 6FKHPDWLFIRUWKH 3UHOLPLQDU\3UHIHUUHG6ROXWLRQ &RQWDFW,QIRUPDWLRQ &RQVXOWDWLRQZLWKLQWHUHVWHGVWDNHKROGHUVLVDQLPSRUWDQWDQGQHFHVVDU\ FRPSRQHQWRIWKH&ODVV($SURFHVV $OOFRPPHQWVUHFHLYHGZLOOEHFRQVLGHUHGDQGLQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRWKH&ODVV($ GRFXPHQWDWLRQ3OHDVHSURYLGHFRPPHQWVRQWKHVWXG\E\7XHVGD\0D\VW $Q\DGGLWLRQDOFRPPHQWVRUTXHVWLRQVFDQEHIRUZDUGHGWR Martin Shaw Project Coordinator Graeme King Project Manager The City of Barrie 70 Collier Street, Box 400 Phone: (705) 739-4220 x5242 Fax: (705) 739-4243 Email: mshaw@barrie.ca The City of Barrie 70 Collier Street, Box 400 Phone: (705) 739-4220 x4532 Fax: (705) 739-4243 Email: gking@barrie.ca 7KDQN\RXIRUDWWHQGLQJDQGSURYLGLQJ\RXUYDOXDEOHLQSXW BWPCC Biogas Utilization Upgrades Questionnaire - April 2012 1. Do you agree with the City of Barrie’s problem statement expressing interest in “exploring options available for utilizing power generated from the cogen system to gain optimum financial and green benefits”? Response Response Percent Count Yes 100.0% 1 No 0.0% 0 answered question 1 skipped question 0 2. The WPCC currently utilizes a waste biogas flare as a safety device to destroy excess biogas that it cannot use. Although we must keep the flare, the City can make less use of the flare by having more biogas storage (i.e. to temporarily store the excess) and then combust the gas in boilers or cogeneration engines. Are you in favour of minimizing the flaring of biogas on-site? Response Yes No 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 Count Are you in favour of green energy options associated with using biogas on-site? 1 of 10 answered question 0 skipped question 1 3. The WPCC already uses biogas to offset the need for natural gas and/or electricity. Are you in favour of using biogas for plant boilers (hot water heating)? Response Yes No 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 Count Are you in favour of using biogas for electricity generation and usage on-site? Are you in favour of using biogas for electricity generation on-site and selling back to the grid? answered question 0 skipped question 1 4. The intent of this project is to increase biogas recovery and reduce waste flaring of biogas. Response Yes No 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 Count Are you in favour of increasing the amount of biogas recovered and used in plant boilers? Are you in favour of increasing the amount of biogas recovered and used in generating electricity onsite? Are you in favour of increasing the amount of biogas recovered, using biogas for electricity generation onsite and, in future, selling back to the grid? 2 of 10 answered question 0 skipped question 1 5. The Schedule B Class Environmental Process is being undertaken since the environmental effects are known and the project will have minimal effects on the environment: As such... Response Yes No 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 Count Do you agree that the project should minimize the effects on vegetation and the adjacent watercourses? Have the Surrounding Land Uses (ie, residential, etc) been identified? Have the Natural Environment features (ie, creeks, trees, etc) been identified? answered question 0 skipped question 1 6. After review of the seven potential alternatives for biogas usage, do you believe that an adequate number of options are being considered? Yes Response Response Percent Count 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 answered question 0 skipped question 1 No (what are the other alternatives that you think should be considered?) 3 of 10 7. In regards to the Potential alternatives identified for the best use of the biogas, please let us know: Response Yes No 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 Count OPTION 1: Do you think that the City should better utilize the biogas to generate power and heat for the internal demands of the WPCC? OPTION 2: The City has previously applied to the provincial government’s Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) program that would pay the City at a constant rate to feed the generated power back to the local hydro grid. The City is waiting to see if it has been accepted to the program. The current Co-generation system will require upgrades. Do you agree that the City should take advantage of this opportunity if there is a payback period of approximately 5 years? OPTION 3: A combination of Options 1 and 2 could be implemented so that the City could use the biogas internally during the periods when the hydro rates are high and then sell to the local hydro grid during periods when rates are low. Do you agree that the City should further develop this strategy to provide the flexibility to take advantage of time-of-use rates and maximize cost saving? OPTION 4: It was originally proposed to convey the biogas to the Historic Allandale Train Station to be used for building heating. It was determined that the while technically feasible, the operational implications would be challenging (ex. Equipment space, special permits, specialized training for City staff, etc). It was therefore decided that if the biogas was to be 4 of 10 used that hot water from a new biogas boiler system (much like the current WPCC heating system) would be conveyed to the Historic Allandale Train Station for hot supplemental boiler circulation water. Should the City further investigate this option if it is financially feasible? OPTION 5: For the City to sell the biogas or hot water, it would have to accept the added risk and liability of providing a continuous supply of fuel to private citizens and/or Corporations. To ensure fairness, the City would have to develop a public process to find the 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 highest bidder for the fuel supply. The City would also have to factor in the costs of constructing the piping to the highest bidder’s property. Should the City get into the business of selling fuel to the private citizens/Corporations? OPTION 6: Should the City continue with its practice of utilizing biogas instead of natural gas for hot water heating when it is cheaper to use biogas? OPTION 7: Should the City “Do Nothing”? 5 of 10 answered question 0 skipped question 1 8. If you have any other comments in regards to the potential alternatives identified for the best use of the biogas, please let us know: Response Count 0 answered question 0 skipped question 1 9. After review of the four potential alternatives for biogas storage, do you believe that an adequate number of options are being considered? Yes Response Response Percent Count 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 answered question 0 skipped question 1 No (what are the other alternatives that you think should be considered?) 10. In regards to the potential alternatives identified for biogas storage, do you prefer a lowprofile biogas storage facility to minimize visibilty? Response Response Percent Count Yes 0.0% 0 No 0.0% 0 answered question 0 skipped question 1 6 of 10 11. Which is the above configurations do you prefer? Response Response Percent Count Dome 0.0% 0 Floating Roof 0.0% 0 Membrane Technology 100.0% 1 Low Profile Cylinders 0.0% 0 Steel or Concrete Tank with Bladder 0.0% 0 Comments? 0 answered question 1 skipped question 0 7 of 10 12. Additional questions Response Yes No 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 Count With some biogas domes there is potential for decorative artistic finishes (ex golf ball). Is this something that you would be receptive to on the waterfront? With some biogas domes there is potential for selling advertising. Is this something that you would be receptive to on the waterfront? Do you generally concur with the selection / evaluation criteria that have been used in the Presentation Boards (For example, Construction Cost, O&M Costs, Technology Maturity, Public Safety, etc. ) Do you concur with the outcome of the evaluation, that the Preferred Technology is the “Compress and store biogas in a medium pressure steel gas vessel”? Do the anticipated savings in electricity (estimated in the order of $100,000 - $300,000 per year depending on whether a FIT contract is awarded) and minimal payback periods justify this undertaking? For the preliminary preferred alternative, did the material presented and provided at the presentation make it clear that capital cost and Operating& Maintenance costs are higher than several of the alternatives however the preliminary Preferred Technology is rated greater in Technology Maturity, Public Safety, Code Compliance, System Reliability, minimized footprint, and ease of expandability. 8 of 10 answered question 0 skipped question 1 13. Additional questions Response Yes No 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0 Count A Notice of Study Commencement was published in the Barrie Examiner on March 24 and 29. Did you see it? Was the date and time of the Public Information Centre (PIC) convenient for you? Was the location of the PIC convenient for you? Did the PIC help you understand the need for the project? Did the web resources help you understand the need for the project? Did you have enough opportunity to ask questions, make comments or express concerns? Were the questions answered to your satisfaction? Do you have any comments, concerns, questions or suggestions regarding the Class EA decision making process of this project? 9 of 10 0 answered question 0 skipped question 1 14. How would you describe the nature of your interest in this study? Response Response Percent Count Member of the General Public 0.0% 0 Member of an Interest Group 0.0% 0 Consultant 0.0% 0 Agency Representative 0.0% 0 Other 0.0% 0 Please specify your company/organization name if applicable 0 answered question 0 skipped question 1 Response Response Percent Count 15. Please provide your contact information (optional) Name: 0.0% 0 Address: 0.0% 0 City: 0.0% 0 Phone Number: 0.0% 0 answered question 0 skipped question 1 10 of 10 Barrie Water Pollution Control Centre Biogas Utilization Upgrades 1. Do you have any comments, concerns, questions or suggestions regarding the biogas storage technologies being evaluated? Pressure Gas Vessel Response Response Percent Count 100.0% 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 1 answered question 1 skipped question 1 Concrete Tank with Steel Gas Cover Double Membrane Storage 2. Do you have any comments, concerns, questions or suggestions regarding the cogeneration power use options being evaluated? Response Response Percent Count Displace Additional Plant Power Load 100.0% 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 1 answered question 1 skipped question 1 Participate in the Provincial Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) Program (Feed to local Power Grid) A Combination of Both Options 1 of 8 3. Do you have any comments, concerns, questions or suggestions regarding the preliminary preferred alternative for providing for storing biogas and using the power generated by the biogas which will include: The construction of a medium pressure gas vessel and modifying cogeneration system controls to allow the system to either displace additional plant power load or to participate in the provincial FIT program at any given time. Response Count 1 answered question 1 skipped question 1 4. Are there any other important factors that the study team should consider for this project? Response Count 2 answered question 2 skipped question 0 5. Was the time and location of the Public Information Centre convenient for you? Response Response Percent Count Yes 50.0% 1 No 50.0% 1 answered question 2 skipped question 0 2 of 8 6. Did the Public Information Centre help you to better understand the need for the project? Response Response Percent Count Yes 100.0% 2 No 0.0% 0 Uncertain 0.0% 0 answered question 2 skipped question 0 7. Did you have enough opportunity to ask questions, make comments or express concerns? Response Response Percent Count Yes 50.0% 1 No 50.0% 1 answered question 2 skipped question 0 Response Response Percent Count 8. Were those questions answered to your satisfaction? Yes No (please comment) 3 of 8 50.0% 1 50.0% 1 answered question 2 skipped question 0 9. Do you have any comments, concerns, questions or suggestions regarding the Class EA decision making process of this project? Response Count 1 answered question 1 skipped question 1 10. On a scale of 1 to 5, how useful did you find the Public Information Centre? (1 being not useful, 5 being very useful) How useful did you find the Public Information Centre? 1 2 3 4 5 0.0% (0) 50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) Rating Response Average Count 2.50 2 answered question 2 skipped question 0 11. How would you describe the nature of your interest in this study? Response Response Percent Count Member of the General Public 50.0% 1 Member of an Interest Group 0.0% 0 Consultant 0.0% 0 Agency Representative 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 answered question 2 skipped question 0 Other (please specify) 4 of 8 12. Please provide your contact information Name: Address: City: Postal Code: Phone Number: Response Response Percent Count 100.0% 2 100.0% 2 100.0% 2 100.0% 2 50.0% 1 answered question 2 skipped question 0 13. Any additional comments? Response Count 1 5 of 8 answered question 1 skipped question 1 Q1. Do you have any comments, concerns, questions or suggestions regarding the biogas storage technologies being evaluated? Pressure Gas Vessel 1 This is considered as an alternative. Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM Concrete Tank with Steel Gas Cover 1 This would be expensive and ugly. Not a good option. Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM Double Membrane Storage 1 This would be ideal if cost and approvals are acceptable. Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM Q2. Do you have any comments, concerns, questions or suggestions regarding the cogeneration power use options being evaluated? Displace Additional Plant Power Load 1 This is the ideal as eventually the FIT funds would be less than the cost of energy. Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM Participate in the Provincial Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) Program (Feed to local Power Grid) 1 This does not make sense as a long-term solution. Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM A Combination of Both Options 1 There is an option where you can provide excess energy to the OPA grid in exchange for credits for electricity purchased at a later date. Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM Q3. Do you have any comments, concerns, questions or suggestions regarding the preliminary preferred alternative for providing for storing biogas and using the power generated by the biogas which will include: <br /><br /><div style="font-weight:normal; font-style: italic;">The construction of a medi... 1 The WPCC is better off to maximize electrical production on the site to fill its own requirements while offering to pipe heated (and chilled) water, not required by the WPCC, to nearby private and public facilities. Pricing established for this service in the community is sustainable and can be locked in for extended periods to ensure full recovery of the investments involved. In some cases, the recipient of the water from the WPCC would be willing to pay for the piping requirements. 6 of 8 Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM Q4. Are there any other important factors that the study team should consider for this project? 1 The study team needs to look at Community Heat and Power (CHP) operations such as in Markham, Ontario to see how the faciilities can be useful in the community. Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM 2 The storage of the gas is my key concern. Maximum safety standard should be used especially recalling the major gas explosion a few years ago in Toronto. Such and explosion could wipe out blocks of homes. The burn off must be scent free and is not currently. I used to live next to the plant and on some days the smell was horrid. Apr 3, 2012 6:49 AM Q8. Were those questions answered to your satisfaction? 1 . Apr 3, 2012 6:49 AM Q9. Do you have any comments, concerns, questions or suggestions regarding the Class EA decision making process of this project? 1 The system in place does not seem to be taking anywhere need the opportunity to produce hot or chilled water that can be of use on site as well as throughout the community. To offer the piped water from the facility is not only excellent public relations but it justifies the vital location of the WPCC. Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM Q11. How would you describe the nature of your interest in this study? 1 I am a writer. I have spent 30 years in high technology public relations. I happen to live next door to the WPCC. Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM Q12. Please provide your contact information 1 Name: Peter Lowry Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM Address: 1510 - 75 Ellen St Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM City: Barrie Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM Postal Code: L4N 7R6 Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM 7 of 8 Q12. Please provide your contact information Phone Number: 705-719-9308 Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM 2 Name: Scott Tate Apr 3, 2012 6:49 AM Address: 78 Bayview Dr Apr 3, 2012 6:49 AM City: Barrie Apr 3, 2012 6:49 AM Postal Code: L4N 3P1 Apr 3, 2012 6:49 AM Q13. Any additional comments? 1 If there is any way I can help explain the value of what the WPCC offers the community, I am available on a consulting basis. 8 of 8 Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM Appendix C Technical Memoranda TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Barrie WPCC Cogeneration Power Utilization Alternatives PREPARED FOR: City of Barrie PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL Canada Limited DATE: October 27, 2011 1. Background Since 1995, Barrie WPCC has been utilizing biogas harvested from the onsite anaerobic digesters for electricity and heat generation. The Biogas Utilization Facility at Barrie WPCC consists of the biogas pretreatment system, the boilers system and the cogeneration (cogen) system. Upon completion of the 76 MLD Expansion, the City is interested in exploring options available for utilizing power generated from the cogen system to gain optimum financial and green benefits. This technical memorandum aims to explore the various options available for cogeneration power utilization. It considers the electrical and control modifications required around the Cogeneration System and the investment returns based on the projected electrical pricing in the Ontario Energy Market over the next 12 years.*. 1.1 Cogeneration and Plant Switchgears Tie-in The cogen system at the Barrie WPCC consists of two 250 kWe Waukesha Reciprocating Cogen engines, located in the Engine Room. The two engines are dual fuel type (could be fired by natural gas or biogas) that generates 600 volts (V), 3 phase power that feeds back to the Plant’s switchgear to supplement power consumption in the plant. The cogen system is controlled by a local control system consisting of engine controls, protective relaying as well as electrically operated power circuit breakers that controls, synchronizes, and connects each of the two gas-fired generator sets to the plant power grid. The generator sets feed power to the Plant via Motor Control Center (MCC) No. 6. MCC6 receives its normal power from the Outdoor 600 V Switchgear located immediately south of the standby power generator building. Breaker No. 6, located on Bus No. 2, is powered from the Substation Transformer T2 (1,500 kVA). To-date, power generated by the cogen system directly feeds to Bus No. 2 only. The cogen power, even though available, will not be able to feed to the MCCs connected to Bus No. 1. Therefore, during occasional nights when power generated by the engine is higher than power demand at Bus No. 2, the engine will trip off linetrips. Safety features embedded in the Control of the engines requires the engines to be started manually whenever a trip occurs. Due to the limited plant operator availability during night shifts, biogas is wasted either by feeding to a boiler, or to the waste gas burner to avoid pressure build up in * 12 years is the estimated end life of the existing cogen engines. The 12th years (2013) is also the approximate year where biogas production exceeds total fuel capacity of the existing two engines in which beyond that, the City will need to invest to replace existing two engines with larger and hopefully more efficient engines. BARRIE WPCC COGENERATION POWER UTILIZATION ALTERNATIVES the digesters. This mode of operation is deemed undesirable due to the inefficient usage of biogas energy. To optimize cogen usage, Bus No. 1 and No. 2 need to be connected. As part of the 76MLD Expansion, the new Switchgear incorporates a soft wired selector switch that allows three (3) operating modes, i.e. both transformers operating (with the tie breaker between Bus No. 1 and No. 2 open) and either one of the transformers in operation (with the tie breaker closed). With this feature, the plant could utilize the cogen system to reduce utility load in two ways: 1. Feeding cogen power to Bus No. 2 only. Bus No. 2 powers the following MCCs: MCC No. 1, 4, 5, 7, and 11. This happens when both transformers are in use and the tie breaker that connects Bus No. 1/No. 2 is open. 2. Feeding cogen power to both Bus No. 1 and Bus No. 2. In this case, cogen power will feed load to all MCCs. This could only happen when the tie breaker that connects Bus No. 1/No. 2 is closed, and the plant power is supplied from only one of the two transformers, i.e. one of the breakers on T1 or T2 has to be open. Detailed switchgear operational options and breakers interlock are provided in the appended Switchgear Operational Options and Alternatives TM. Control Features of the Existing Waukesha Engines and Its Limitations The existing cogen controller has the following features embedded that allow the engines to operate in automatic mode: • Synchronizer that provides control of certain circuit breakers to allow closure for an off-theline generator to the bus when phase and frequency are matched within preset limits. • Load sharing and speed control governor that automatically controls engine speed and allows load sharing via cross current compensation paralleling control circuits. The voltage regulator senses generator voltage and initiates a change in generator excitation current to maintain voltage limits. Historically, the biogas production in the plant is only sufficient to fuel one engine. Therefore, the engines were designed to operate as one running and one standby. With increases in biogas production over the years due to expanded plant capacity, there is sufficient biogas to fuel two engines occasionally. Even though the individual engines could synchronize to the utility grid automatically, there is limited synchronizing and load sharing features in the Cogen system to ensure smooth operation. The existing control system does not have a load sharing feature for parallel operated engines. Management determined synchronization and load sharing might require additional interface controls. To allow the engines to operate in lead/lag mode based on biogas availability, the new control system will require the following features: • Generator load sensor for proportional load sharing between paralleled generators. • Generator load controller to provide soft loading or unloading of a generator to a load sharing system. TM2_COGENERATIONPOWERUTILIZATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT26.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 2 BARRIE WPCC COGENERATION POWER UTILIZATION ALTERNATIVES • Var/power factor (PF) controller that allows the generator to maintain a constant PF for reliable operation. 1.2 Plant Power Consumption Pattern The City of Barrie purchases electricity for its various utility operations from Power Stream, a Local Power Distribution Company that services North of Toronto and Central Ontario. The City purchases electricity at rates determined by the Spot Market. In late 2009, Power Stream had installed power meters for the various facilities in City of Barrie. The power meter features allows consumers to obtain the hourly power consumption of their facility from a website called the “e-MeterData”. Data between November 2009 to January 2011 for Barrie WPCC was extracted from the database to generate the diurnal power consumption pattern in the plant (Figure 1-1). In 2009, the cogen engines were shut off for a year due to construction of 76 MLD Expansion. Therefore, from November 2009 to March 2010, the plant did not offset its consumption with cogen power. This pattern reflects the actual power load consumed in the plant. After March 2010, the cogen engines were back online again and the plant was able to off-load part of its load with one of the engines operating. The graph below shows the diurnal power consumption in the plant during these two periods. As illustrated in Figure 1-1, power demand drops by approximately 10 to 20% throughout the night. Even then, the minimum power demand is approximately 800 kWh, which is far greater than the maximum power generation capacity of the two cogen engines combined. Diurnal Power Consumption 1200 Metered Power (kWh) 1000 800 600 With 1 Cogen Operating - Mar'10 to Jan'11 400 Without Cogen - Nov'09 to Feb'10 200 0 0:00 3:00 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 0:00 Daily Hours Figure 1-1- Average Diurnal Power Consumption in Barrie WPCC between Nov 2009 to January 2011 TM2_COGENERATIONPOWERUTILIZATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT26.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 3 BARRIE WPCC COGENERATION POWER UTILIZATION ALTERNATIVES 1.3 Electricity prices for Barrie WPCC Municipalities in Ontario can purchase electricity through the following two ways: (1) Purchase power directly from the open market, commonly known as the SPOT market where the electricity price in the market fluctuates based on supply and demand. Market price is set hourly by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) based on the forecast of power supply and demand in Ontario; (2) Sign a contract with licensed retailer that guarantees price stability. Depending on the terms in the contract, consumers could opt to either purchase a block of kilowatt hours at a fixed price or market-indexed price. Hourly Electricity Price Daily Average Electricity Price Billed Electricity Price Peak Factor 16.00 1.60 12.00 1.20 8.00 0.80 4.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0:00 4:48 9:36 14:24 19:12 Peak Factor Cents/kWhr The City of Barrie purchases its power through Power Stream, its local power distribution company at a market-indexed price based on the Hourly Ontario Energy Price, set by IESO. Figure 1-2 illustrates the electricity price fluctuation hourly within a given day. 0:00 Hour of a day Figure 1-2- Hourly Ontario Energy Price (Monthly Average for July 2011) * * Hourly price shown depicts average price at that given hour over the month of July. Data obtained from E-meter Data, Barrie WPCC account. TM2_COGENERATIONPOWERUTILIZATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT26.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 4 BARRIE WPCC COGENERATION POWER UTILIZATION ALTERNATIVES 1.4 Ontario Energy Market 1.4.1 Electricity Pricing Projection According to Ontario’s Long Term Energy Plan*, the government projects that electricity rates for industry and business will increase by about 2.7 per cent annually over the next 20 years due to investments to produce cleaner and more reliable electricity. For residential pricing, electricity rates will increase by about 7.9 per cent annually (or 46 per cent over five years) but is expected to level off after five years when the investments have been cleared off. 1.4.2 Energy Cost Saving Programs With this projection, the government has launched a series of initiatives to help Ontarians to better manage their energy consumption that could optimize cost savings. These initiatives were communicated through OPA under their saveONenergy program. One of the energy cost savings programs applicable to municipalities is the Demand Response. It compensates participating industrial and commercial businesses for reducing their energy demand at specific times of power system need. Participants are being requested to reduce their power load during peak power demand within a predefined schedule. To be eligible participants must be operating and available during a predefined schedule of about 1,600 hours per calendar year. Within that 1,600-hour period, participants can select to activate its Demand Response measure to either 100 hours or 200 hours per year. Since the compensation is based on load reduced during the activation period, compensation received is determined by comparing the plant’s actual metered load during an activation period with a calculated baseline representing what the normal load would have otherwise been during the activation period. For the case of the Barrie WPCC, using cogen to participate in Demand Response is not recommended as the plant could generate more savings by continuously offseting power consumption with the cogen engines. 1.4.3 Renewable Energy Program: Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) Program In 2009, the provincial government introduced the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 (GEA) to spark growth in clean and renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar, hydro, and bioenergy. Spinning out of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act is the Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) Program, implemented by OPA in September 2009. The program encourages independent generators to produce electricity using renewable energies by providing a guaranteed pricing structure for renewable energy production over a contract term of 20 years. It replaces the previous Renewable Energy Standard Offer Program (RESOP), aiming to include a broader range of renewable energy generation projects. Benefits of FIT include: • The contract facility will get paid a premium price for generating electricity. For facilities utilizing biogas that generates less than 500 kW, the price is 0.22¢/kWh during peak hours, and 0.14¢/kWh during off-peak hours * Published by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) in 2010 TM2_COGENERATIONPOWERUTILIZATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT26.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 5 BARRIE WPCC COGENERATION POWER UTILIZATION ALTERNATIVES • • Guaranteed pricing for the next 20 years (contract term) with an escalation percentage* of 20%. Appendix A shows how escalation percentage is adjusted for contract price. Not required to generate the contracted electricity 24 hours a day. Contract specifies that OPA pays for the amount of electricity that is produced when the generator is put on-line In Nov 2009, the OPA amended the FIT program rules by adding a “Transition Option” category, with the objective of encouraging enrollment from small existing generator facilities to take part in the renewable energy movement. The amendment allows existing small renewable energy projects (of less than 500 kW) to be eligible for FIT even without carrying out any upgrade or expansion work. Based on this understanding, it is very likely that the existing 250 kW generated by the Cogen Facility in Barrie WPCC could fully benefit the new FIT premium price as well. 2. Cogeneration Power Options The plant’s normal practice is to continuously fire one 250 kW cogen engine to offset plant power consumption. With proper biogas management and improved cogen engines controls, the following operation options are now available to the plant: 1. Strategic Plant Load Displacement The plant could strategically off-set power up to 500 kW for a few hours during peak rates (9:00AM to 9:00PM) by firing two engines at full capacity, and fire one engine to generate 250 kW hour during off-peak rates. 2. Participate in the Transition Feed-In-Tariff Program The City could enroll in the Transition FIT Program and sell electricity back to the grid at premium electricity pricing. Once the contract is signed, the plant could strategically feed power back to the grid up to 500 kW during the peak performance period (11:00AM to 7:00PM) at 21.6 cents/kWh-hour and 250 kW during the off peak period (7:01PM to 10:59am) at 14.4 cents/kWh-hour.the There is no minimum power or hours commitment to feed power back to the grid. The City of Barrie submitted an application for the Transition FIT program in December 2010 and is now waiting for OPA’s approval to sign the contract. Either option requires some degree of modification around the electrical switchgear and cogen control system. The remaining sections considers the various modification work required to implement these options. 2.1 Option 1 Available for Plant Load Displacement Only This option allows power generated from the two cogens to be fed to the plant switch gear for plant load displacement only. At this stage, the gas production in the plant has not reached the level of feeding two engines at full capacity; the control strategy will allow the engines to operate in a lead-lag fashion based on biogas availability. As mentioned in Section 1.1, the * Escalation percentage means the percentage of the contract price that escalates on the basis of increases in Consumer Price Index (CPI) TM2_COGENERATIONPOWERUTILIZATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT26.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 6 BARRIE WPCC COGENERATION POWER UTILIZATION ALTERNATIVES existing cogen engines each have their own controller with synchronizing and load sharing capability. However, a central load sensor and generator controller will be needed should the engines be operated in lead-lag mode. 2.2 Option 2 Available for Feeding Power back to the Utility Grid Only This option considers selling power generated from the cogen engines back to the utility at premium pricing under the FIT pricing and to purchase power for the plant use at current market price from Power Stream. If the FIT contract is offered, the plant could sell the electricity generated through the cogen engines back to OPA at an average price of $0.16/kWh*. The price structure will be guaranteed for a period of 20 years, accounting for inflation. According to the FIT rules, the generator could choose to feed into the grid at any given time. However, the contract requires the generator facility to have a separate metering system that monitors power fed back to the grid. Net metering (or behind the facility metering) is not permitted. As such, electrical modification around the cogen switchgear will be required to feed power directly back to the grid. 2.3 Option 3 Allows two (2) engines to feed power back to the grid or for plant load displacement This option is the combination of both option 1 and option 2. Some electrical interlocking with the operator interface will be required to allow the operator to select one of the two modes of operation: feed power back to the grid or feed power to plant switchgear through MCC 6 for plant load displacement. This option allows the City to achieve maximum cost benefit from FIT without sacrificing the capability for plant load displacement should energy prices in the Ontario market soar higher than the FIT contract price. 2.4 Option 4 Allows one (1) engine to feed power back to the grid, and one (1) engine for plant load displacement This option considers the possibility of allowing the plant to utilize cogen power to sell back to the grid and for plant load displacement at the same time. This requires one cogen engine dedicated to feeding power to the grid, and the other dedicated to feeding to the plant switch gear. At any given time, the plant and the grid will receive a maximum of 250 kW instead of the combined 500 kW like the other options. However, unlike Option 1, synchronization and load management is not required for the two cogen engines as they each feed to a different loadgrids. Under this scenario, plant operators will select either one of the engines as the primary and the other one as secondary power generators. The primary power generator will receive biogas fuel continuously, and the secondary generator will come online when additional biogas is available. This allows plant operator to decide when power is most suited for plant load displacement and when to sell back to the grid on a daily basis. * For facilities utilizing biogas that generate less than 500 kW, the price is 0.22¢/kWh during peak hours, and 0.14¢/kWh during offpeak hours TM2_COGENERATIONPOWERUTILIZATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT26.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 7 BARRIE WPCC COGENERATION POWER UTILIZATION ALTERNATIVES 3. Evaluation of Alternatives 3.1 Summary of Alternatives The following table summarizes the modification work required and construction costs associated with each option. Both Cutler Hummer and Thompson Technology were contacted to obtain realistic pricing associated with the modifications. TM2_COGENERATIONPOWERUTILIZATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT26.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 8 Table 1 – Summary of Modification Work and Capital Cost Required for all four options Description Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Two (2) cogens available for plant load displacement Two (2) cogens available for feeding power back to the utility grid only Two (2) cogens available to either feed power back to the grid, or for plant load displacement One (1) cogen available for feeding power back to the grid and one (1) available for plant load displacement Supply and install a new master control PLC with HMI, a new backpan and a front door in section 5 of the existing cogen switchgear. Supply and install a new master control PLC with HMI, a new backpan and a front door in section 5 of the existing cogen switchgear. Estimated Cost : $80,000 Estimated Cost : $100,000 No new electrical hardware required Modification Work TTI Cutler-Hammer Supply and install Basler BE1-11i Utility intertie relay and new front door in section 1, a new 800A breaker, a new master control PLC and HMI, a new backpan and front door in section 5 of the existing switchgear Supply and install Basler BE1-11i Utility intertie relay and new front door in section 1, a new 800A breaker, a new master control PLC and HMI, a new backpan and front door in section 5 of the existing switchgear Estimated Cost : $115,000 Estimated Cost : $120,000 - Supply step-up transformer from 600V to 4.16 kV - Supply step-up transformer from 600V to 4.16 kV - Supply step-up transformer from 600V to 4.16 kV - Supply a secondary metering unit rated at 600V - Supply a secondary metering unit rated at 600V - Supply and install a secondary metering unit rated at 600V -Supply cables from the cogen switchgear to the 4.16kV feeder on Bradford / Brock Street -Supply cables from the cogen switchgear to the 4.16kV feeder on Bradford / Brock Street -Supply and install cables from the cogen switchgear to the 4.16kV feeder on Bradford / Brock Street - Supply Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS) – Optional - $50,000 General Contractor City’s programming Total Capital Cost Estimated Cost : $50,000 Estimated Cost : $50,000 Estimated Cost : $50,000 (+$50,000 optional) Integrate new system to existing electrical system Installation of equipment and device from Cutler-Hammer Installation of equipment and device from Cutler-Hammer Installation of equipment and device from Cutler-Hammer Estimated Cost : $20,000 Estimated Cost : $50,000 Estimated Cost : $50,000 Estimated Cost : $50,000 Integrate Plant SCADA programming to Cogen control Integrate Plant SCADA programming to Cogen control Integrate Plant SCADA programming to Cogen control Integrate Plant SCADA programming to Cogen control $ 200,000 $ 215,000 ($265,000 if ATS is preferred) $ 120,000 $ 220,000 3.2 Cost Analysis A cost analysis is conducted to compare the two operation options: (1) Using cogen power for plant load displacement; and (2) feed power back to the grid through transition FIT program. Figure 3 – Cost Saving Scenarios for both Plant Load Displacement and FIT Enrollment (Base Case)illustrates the cost saving scenarios for both utilization options. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted to understand the analysis outcome based on Ontario electricity price changes. Table 2 summarizes the cost analysis. The analysis is based on the following assumptions: Rate of Return is 5% and the investment period is 12 years*; Base case scenario: Ontario electricity price increases at a rate of 2.7% over the next 12 years; • Sensitive Analysis A : Ontario electricity price increases at a rate of 5% over the next 12 years; • Sensitive Analysis B : Ontario electricity price increases at a rate of 8% over the next 12 years; • Additional costs such as transmission, distribution charges and other additional charges from Power Stream average to be approximately 7 cents/kWh and remain the same for the next 12 years; • Consider Option 1 for electrical modification for Plant Load Displacement scenario, and Option 3 for electrical modification to allow for FIT Enrollment • The Percentage Escalated Rate for FIT contract price is 20%; • FIT contract price is 16 cents/kWh with peak factor being 1.35 and off-peak factor being 0.90; The analysis is compared with the savings the City is currently having by having one cogen engine operating at full capacity (250kW) all year long. • • * 12 years is the estimated end life of the existing cogen engines. The 12th years (2013) is also the approximate year where biogas production exceeds total fuel capacity of the existing two engines in which beyond that, the City will need to invest to replace existing two engines with larger and hopefully more efficient engines. BARRIE WPCC COGENERATION POWER UTILIZATION ALTERNATIVES Current Plant Load Displacement Strategic Plant Load Displacement FIT Contract Ontario Electricity Price FIT Contract Price 23.00 Cost Savings, CDN$ $1,000,000 $800,000 18.00 $600,000 $400,000 13.00 $200,000 $- Electricity Price, cents/kWh $1,200,000 8.00 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Year Figure 3 – Cost Saving Scenarios for both Plant Load Displacement and FIT Enrollment (Base Case) Table 2 – Summary of Cost Benefit Analysis Current Plant Load Displacement Strategic Plant Load Displacement FIT Enrollment $0 $120,000 (Option 1) $215,000 (Option 3) Base case ( Year 1 to 13 ) 10 to 11.2 cents/kWh 10 to 11.2 cents/kWh Sensitivity Analysis A (Year 1 to 13) 10 to 12.5 cents/kWh 10 to 12.5 cents/kWh Sensitivity Analysis B (Year 1 to 13) 10 to 13.72 cents/kWh Capital Cost Electricity Prices, cents/kWh 16 to 18.05 cents/kWh 10 to 13.72 cents/kWh NPV of average annual cost savings, CDN$ Base case $185,740 $291,700 $491,000 Sensitivity Analysis A $195,340 $308,700 $491,000 Sensitivity Analysis B $200,500 $318,200 $491,000 Accumulated NPV Additional Savings, compared to Current Savings over the next 12 years Base case $0 $1.38 Million $3.96 Million Sensitivity Analysis A $0 $1.47 Million $3.84 Million Sensitivity Analysis B $0 $1.53 Million $3.78 Million TM2_COGENERATIONPOWERUTILIZATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT26.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 11 BARRIE WPCC COGENERATION POWER UTILIZATION ALTERNATIVES 4. Recommendation It is recommended that the City sign the Transition FIT contract with OPA should the contract be granted. The cost analysis shows that enrolling in the Transition FIT program provides the highest cost savings even under the worst case scenario considered here, i.e. the electricity price increases by 8% for the next 12 years. This is because very minimal investment (less than $200K) is required to sign the contract and feed power back to the grid. The additional savings generated from the high electricity price under FIT contract allows the initial investment to be paid back in less than a year. Furthermore, the contract takes inflation into account by annually adjusting the FIT pricing based on the Ontario Consumers Price Index. Therefore, even with the possibility of high electricity pricing in the market for the next 12 years, the price will still be lower than FIT pricing. In terms of electrical and control modification, the capital cost difference between Option 2, 3 and 4 is fairly minimal. Therefore, it is recommended that City to proceed with Option 3, which is to modify the electrical and control system to allow the operator to choose to use cogen power for plant load displacement, or feed in back to the grid at any given time. This requires a transfer switch to be installed in the existing breaker panel that was originally reserved for a third cogen engine. By doing so, there will be no space available in the existing electrical room for adding a third engine. This is acceptable, as in the future should additional cogeneration capacity be required, the existing two engines could be replaced with larger capacity (350 kW),350kW) engines, therefore, a third engine will not be required. Option 3 could be carried out in stages: Modify cogen engine control system and install the automatic transfer switch. When FIT contract is granted and signed, City could then proceed to electrical modification to connect power to the grid. TM2_COGENERATIONPOWERUTILIZATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT26.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 12 APPENDIX A Feed In Tariff Contract Price Adjustment FIT Contract Pricing Calculation 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 CPI 120 122 124 125 127 129 131 133 135 137 139 141 143 8% Cpy, Cents/kWh 16.05 16.3 16.5 16.8 17.0 17.3 17.5 17.8 18.1 18.3 18.6 18.9 Excerpt from FIT Contract Version 1.5.1 (July 2011) - Exhibit B PE 0.2 TCPBD 16 Facilities Less Than or Equal to 5MW Not Regiesstered in the IESO Administered Market * Assume CPI increase by 1.5% every year. Rate Estimated based on 2005 to 2010 data TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Barrie WPCC Biogas Storage Alternatives PREPARED FOR: City of Barrie PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL Canada Limited DATE: October 27, 2011 1 Background Barrie WPCC has been utilizing biogas harvested from its anaerobic digesters to generate power and heat onsite through its cogeneration (cogen) engines since 1995. There are two 250kWe Waukesha engines installed in the Engine Room. The Waukesha engines were designed to operate as duty/standby rotation. Over the years, increases in plant flow capacity have led to increases in biogas generation. The plant currently generates approximately 4300m3/day of biogas, which volume is sufficient to meet full operating capacity of one cogen engine, but insufficient to operate the second engine. In recent years, limited gas storage within the digesters restricts the plant from fully utilizing biogas available to maximize power generation. Assessment carried out during the Preliminary Design for Biogas Facility Upgrade concluded that installing an onsite gas storage unit is the best value option to improve biogas utilization in the plant. The study recommended that detailed evaluation of gas storage technologies be carried out to identify the storage option that is most suitable for the plant. Detailed evaluation could be found in the Preliminary Design Report - Barrie WPCC Biogas Facility Upgrade. The purpose of this technical memorandum is to identify the design basis for the biogas storage. By recognizing the site and process constraints, this study explores gas storage options available in the market and provides a recommendation that best suits Barrie WPCC. 2 Design Basis 2.1 Gas Production Data Historical biogas production data between 2006 and 2010 were collected and analyzed to establish the design basis for the gas storage unit. The following limitations were being considered when processing the raw data: • Data collected in this period was recorded only by the gas flow meter installed on the gas pipe that goes to the cogen building. Gas sent to the waste gas burner was not measured. According to plant operators, the waste gas burner comes online occasionally to burn excess gas that is not usable in the cogen system; this flow was not recorded due to the location of the existing gas flow meter. Accurate flow data on total gas production was only available after 2010, when a separate gas meter was installed on the waste gas pipeline. Between 2006 to 2009, the only gas production data available is the gas flow feeding the cogen engines/boiler. • The cogen engines were shut down during the 76 MLD Expansion constructions to allow for plant switchgear modification. As such, accurate gas flow production data between March 2009 and February 2010 is not available. 1 BARRIE WPCC BIOGAS STORAGE ALTERNATIVES While plant operations routinely operates one of the cogen engine 24 hours a day, the engines are shutdown occasionally due to maintenance, engine control fault and SCADA upgrade commissioning. Therefore, measured daily gas flows appear to be much lower than average production and do not reflect the actual process performance of the digesters. These data are considered outliers and were removed from the analysis. Table 1 summarizes the historical annual average biogas production in the plant between 2006 to 2010 and provides projected biogas production to the year 2023. • Table 1 – Historical and Projected Annual Average Biogas Production in Barrie WPCC Annual Average Biogas Production, 3 m /day 2006 3574 2007 3630 2008 3802 2009 Not Available 2010 4177 Daily Diurnal Peak Factor* Projected Average Biogas Production†, 1.10 3 m /day 2012 4507 2013 4649 2014 4791 2015 4934 2016 5076 2017 5218 2018 5360 2019 5502 2020 5645 2021 5787 2022 5929 2023 6071 2.2 Operation Philosophy Until the gas production reaches a flow rate that could continuously fire two engines, only one cogen engine will be fired continuously. The storage therefore serves as the buffer tank that continuously accumulates excess gas that is not used. When sufficient volume is accumulated in the storage (i.e. gas pressure achieves a given high level set point), the second engine will come online. The increase in gas consumption with two engines firing will deplete the gas volume * Established based on September 2008 one-month data. † Future biogas production is estimated by using the biogas generated to plant flow ratio established from historical data between 2008 to 2010 TM1_BIOGASSTORAGEEVALUATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT27.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 2 BARRIE WPCC BIOGAS STORAGE ALTERNATIVES accumulated in the storage unit and the second engine stops when the gas pressure drops to a low level set point. With this buffer, the plant could choose to operate one engine during lower electricity rate period, save the excess gas in storage, and fire two engines to maximize power production during high electricity rate periods. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed operation for the biogas storage unit. Figure 2 communicates three types of information: a typical diurnal gas production pattern, gas volume stored and gas volume consumed for cogeneration operation based on a 2011 gas production profile. Figure 3 displays a different gas production, storage and consumption profile in 2020. As gas production increases yearly, the period of the day where two cogeneration engines could operate increases, resulting in a decrease in storage demand. Figure 4 summarizes these two trends from 2010 to 2023. By 2023, for almost 100% of the time the facility will be firing two cogen engines to consume the biogas available. By this time, it is recommended that a third engine be installed. Based on this philosophy, the sizing of the biogas storage is optimized to hold sufficient gas to operate two engines in full capacity for the high electricity rate period, which is 8 hours*. The storage volume required is approximately 900m3. Detailed calculations of the storage sizing are presented in Appendix A. Engine 1 180m3/hr 2011 Average Flow 3 Accumulation 3 40m /hr 140m /hr Engine 2 Gas Storage 3 900m storage at Standard Conditions (could store for 11 hours) Digesters (a) 1 engine operation during off-peak hours : Gas accumulation in gas storage Engine 1 3 180m /hr Depletion 3 -100m /hr 3 3 280m /h 140m /hr r ( at Engine 2 Gas Storage Digesters 3 140m /hr Operate two engines @ 3 100% (140m /hr) at 10 hours or 3 85% (107m /hr) for 13 hours (b) 2 engines in operation during peak hours: Gas depletion in gas storage Figure 1 – Example of Gas Storage Used to Optimize Biogas Usage (Based on an average gas production in 2011) * Based on the Feed In Tariff peak rate (11am to 7pm). TM1_BIOGASSTORAGEEVALUATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT27.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 3 BARRIE WPCC BIOGAS STORAGE ALTERNATIVES 350 Diurnal Biogas Production Flow in 2011 Biogas flow, m 3/hr 300 250 200 Volume Stored Volume Stored 150 1 Cogen 100 2 Cogens operating at ~85% for 13 hours 50 1 Cogen 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 Hour of the Day Figure 2 – Expected Diurnal Biogas Storage and Operation in 2011 350 Diurnal Biogas Production Flow in 2020 Biogas flow, m3 /hr 300 250 Volume Stored 200 Volume Stored 150 2 Cogens operating at 93% for 17 hours 100 1 Cogen 50 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 Hour of the Day Figure 3 – Expected Diurnal Biogas Storage and Operation in 2020 TM1_BIOGASSTORAGEEVALUATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT27.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 4 Storage Volume Storage Volume Required, m3 1000 % of a day with 2 cogens 100% 750 75% 500 50% 250 25% % of the day 2 Cogens are operating BARRIE WPCC BIOGAS STORAGE ALTERNATIVES 0% 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 0 Figure 4 – Annual storage volume required and percentage of the day with two cogeneration engine in operation 2.3 Redundancies Currently, the cogeneration facility has 100% engine redundancy as the plant only has one duty engine operating at any given time. With the gas production increases over the years, the two engines will be needed to consume gas available. When one of the engines is to be shut down for maintenance, the proposed gas storage will be able to store the additional gas for certain period of time (the duration shall depends on the gas production) to prevent wasting through boilers or gas flares. However, shut down time without wasting gas during maintenance will decrease over the years as gas flow increases. For example, in 2011, with 900m3 of storage available, one of the engines could be shut down for maintenance for 24 hours without needing to waste the surplus gas. In 2016, the same volume of storage could only provide 14 hours of shut down. Therefore, by 2016, a second similar size storage unit might be needed to allow 24 hours shut down time for one of the two cogeneration engines. However, redundancy could be optimized by scheduling annual maintenance during winter. This allows biogas to be used for heating when one of the engine is out for maintenance. 3 Gas Storage Technologies There are two principle types of onsite gas storage commonly used in municipal sewage treatment plant: (1) constant volume, variable pressure storage; and (2) constant pressure, variable volume storage. 3.1 Constant Volume Variable Pressure Storage The constant volume, variable pressure storage is essentially a medium to high pressure vessel that stores compressed gas. A pressure regulating valve is installed downstream of the gas pipe that slowly releases gas at desirable operating pressure and flow to the end user. As gas stored in TM1_BIOGASSTORAGEEVALUATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT27.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 5 BARRIE WPCC BIOGAS STORAGE ALTERNATIVES the tank depletes, the pressure in the storage vessel decreases and eventually stops gas releasing when pressure drops to a given set point (usually close to the operating pressure of the end user). Gas is typically compressed to between 10 to 50 psig in municipal sewage treatment plants. Pressure vessels are made of steel or stainless steel and may theoretically be almost any shape, but shapes made of sections of spheres, cylinders, and cones are usually employed. A sphere has the strongest structural integrity due to its spherical shape that offers uniform stress resistance, allowing the vessels to economically contain internal pressures. They require less land area yet provide more capacity than other pressure storage vessels, resulting in lower associated costs for piping, foundations, accessories and painting. However, design and fabrication of this type of geometry is challenging and is still under patent by Horton CB&I. An alternate design is a cylinder with end caps called heads. Head shapes are frequently either hemispherical or dished (torispherical). Figure 5 (a) & (b) illustrate this type of gas storage in municipal plant. (a) (b) Figure 5 (a) –Spherical Vessel (Horton Sphere) (b) Hemispherical Steel Pressure Vessel 3.2 Constant Pressure Variable Volume Storage The variable volume, constant pressure storage employs mechanism that allows expansion of the tank volume when storage is required and contraction when gas depletion occurs. They are low pressure storage that has an operating pressure that matches the gas pressure in the digester 10 to 15” water column. The few storage solutions available in the market that applies this principle are: (1) gas holding steel cover on a concrete tank, (2) double membrane gas holder, (3) gas bladder in steel or concrete tank. 3.2.1 Gas Holding Steel Cover on a Concrete Tank This is an established technology and is commonly seen in North America municipal sewage treatment plants. It is typically used to retrofit existing digester to replace the digester roof. The gas holder is a floating cover that could be of shell-theory dome or radial beam structure, with added side sheet and ballast to maximize stability. The extended skirt moves up and down TM1_BIOGASSTORAGEEVALUATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT27.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 6 BARRIE WPCC BIOGAS STORAGE ALTERNATIVES vertically within the tank depending on gas volume. To increase stability during high winds condition, guides are installed to the cover sidesheet, engaging guide devices in the digester wall. The guides could be vertical or spiral guide. Figure 6 (a) &(b) illustrate this type of gas holding cover on digesters. Established manufacturers with extended North American installation list are: Ovivo, Wes Tech Engineering, Claro and Olympus Technologies. (a) (b) Figure 6 (a) –Schematic of a Radial Beam Structure (Courtesy of Ovivo) (b) Example of Gas Cover on Digesters (Courtesy of Wes Tech Engineering) 3.2.2 Double Membrane Gas Storage The double membrane gas storage is a relatively new storage technology that has been available in the market for approximately 15 years. The technology was originally developed in Europe, started in the farming industry where low cost biogas harvesting is a common practice. Due to its low cost, easy installation and low maintenance features, this technology has grown popular over the last decade and there are more than a hundred units installed worldwide. Its application in municipal sewage treatment plants for digester gas storage has also become more popular. However, the introduction of this technology to the North American market has only been fairly recent. There are few municipal installations in United States but none to-date in Canada. The storage consists of an external membrane which forms the outer shape of the tank, as well as an internal membrane and a bottom membrane which make up the actual gas space. A permanently running support air blower provides air to the space between inner and outer membrane, and thus keeps the gas pressure up at a constant level – irrespective of gas production and gas withdrawal. The pressurized air has two functions. First it keeps the outer membrane in shape to withstand external wind- and snow loads. Second it exerts a constant pressure on the inner membrane and thus pushes gas at constant volume and pressure into the outlet pipe. A safety valve is mounted on the inlet gas header and serves to prevent the gas holder from over pressure. There is a pressure regulator installed on the discharge header that serves as a pressure control valve. Pressure in the holder is kept constant by allowing the gas holder to inflate or deflate. The filling level is measured by an ultrasonic level transmitter. TM1_BIOGASSTORAGEEVALUATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT27.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 7 BARRIE WPCC BIOGAS STORAGE ALTERNATIVES The storage is available in two types of configuration: (1) standalone unit mounted on a concrete slab; (2) semi-spherical dome that is mounted on a concrete tank (typically replaces the roof of a digester). Figure 7 (a) and (b) illustrate the two configurations. (a) (b) Figure 7 (a) –Concrete Base Mounted Membrane Holder (b) Tank Mounted Membrane Holder 3.2.3 Gas Bladder in a Steel or Concrete Tank This storage essentially acts like a bladder tank, where the bladder itself is made of high-tensile strength polyester or closely woven nylon fabric, specially designed to be chemically resistant and flame resistant. The bladder is installed in a steel or concrete tank, mounted to an attachment bar around the tank shell and to a floating ring. It also includes a stabilizing weight to secure position. Gas withdrawal and gas filling of the pressureless gas bags is most often done via gas connections in the rigid bottom or top surface areas. The filling levels are measured by means of ultrasonic level transmitter. Figure 8 illustrates a typical configuration of the gas bladder tank. Compared to the double membrane storage, this is relatively uncommon and to-date, there is no established North American manufacturer that provides a complete system supply. Design is typically done by a third party engineering group with specified fabric supplied by the fabric manufacturer. Mesa Rubber and Sattler AG are the two established fabric manufacturers that have experience in supplying fabric suitable for biogas storage. TM1_BIOGASSTORAGEEVALUATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT27.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 8 BARRIE WPCC BIOGAS STORAGE ALTERNATIVES Figure 8 – Gas Bladder in a Steel Tank (Courtesy of Sattler) 4 Comparison of Alternatives Further investigation was conducted to identify the storage option that best suits Barrie WPCC. Of the four options describe above, only the following three options are considered: • Double membrane storage, • Spherical pressure vessel, and • Steel gas cover. The gas bladder storage option is excluded from the investigation because of its limited installation examples in North America sewage treatment plant and has no established system manufacturer specializing in this technology to-date. Factors to consider in the evaluation includes: technology maturity, public safety, code compliance, structural integrity, maintenance, capital cost and foot print. 4.1 Option 1 – Double Membrane Gas Storage 4.1.1 Description This option considers installing the membrane gas storage downstream of the digesters. Gas header from the digester will be connected to the inlet of the storage. In this case, the membranes are designed to store gas at pressures matching the digester headspace gas pressures. The outlet gas header will send gas to the existing gas booster system, through the gas treatment system and eventually the cogen systems. Both standalone unit (concrete slab mounted) and tank mounted are considered in this evaluation. Four established manufacturers were contacted to obtain budgetary proposals for a 800m3 gas storage: Ovivo, Wes Tech Engineering, Claro and Siemens. The systems supplied are overall similar and includes the three layer membranes (one inner, one outer and one as the base), TM1_BIOGASSTORAGEEVALUATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT27.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 9 BARRIE WPCC BIOGAS STORAGE ALTERNATIVES fans for continuously venting the membrane space, level measurement, pressure relief valve, pressure control valve and control panel. Packaged equipment cost ranges between CAD$100 to $300K for concrete slab mounted option and CAD$250 to $600K for the tank mounted option. The reason tank mounted option is more expensive is because more membrane material is required to cover a larger diameter foundation in order to achieve the same storage volume. For the tank mounted option, a 1.5m high concrete tank is included to serve as a support. Due to space limitation in the plant, a new small gas building will also be required to house the two blowers and its power and control appurtenances. These costs are not included in suppliers budgetary cost. Table 2 provides a summary of the budgetary proposals can construction cost associated with the double membrane storage. Table 2 – Summary of Budgetary Proposals from Double Membrane Storage Manufacturers Manufacturers / Model Footprint Budgetary Cost ($CDN) (A) Slab Mounted 12m (slab foundation) $300,000 (B) Tank Mounted 16m (membrane diameter) $600,000 (A) Slab Mounted 12.5m (slab foundation) $225,000 (B) Tank Mounted 17m (membrane/tank diameter) $368,000 12m $62,000* 16m (membrane/tank diameter) $242,000 Siemens / Dystor Wes Tech Engineering / Dupsphere Claro Slab Mounted Ovivo Tank Mounted Total Estimated Construction Cost † $750,000 – Slab Mounted $1,100,000 – Tank Mounted 4.1.2 Evaluation Technology maturity – Technology was developed in Europe, originally popular in the farming industry. Its popularity has grown in municipal applications and there are more than 200 units installed worldwide. However, this technology is fairly new to the North American municipal market. There have been a few municipality installations in United States over the last few years but there is no installation to-date in Ontario or across Canada. Public safety – Fabric material, although flame resistant, is not flame proof. Fabric material will burn when fire is introduced to the fabric. Its fabric material nature could be set as target for vandalism from public. For the slab mounted configuration, the storage is susceptible to damage from vehicle collision due to its location in a busy street intersectionand will require barriers around the storage. * excludes freight from UK and installation) † Includes equipment package, piping materials, installation of equipment and piping as well as construction cost for the new gas building. Excludes HST, escalation and construction contingency. TM1_BIOGASSTORAGEEVALUATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT27.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 10 BARRIE WPCC BIOGAS STORAGE ALTERNATIVES Code compliance – Manufacturers have little experience in working with Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) to comply with Digester Gas and Landfill Code CAN/CGA- B105. For example, the code requires a pair of flash-back (flame) arresters and pressure relief valves to be provided with the connection located on top of the container as close as is practicable to the digester gas storage space. This type of arrangement is not possible for standard membrane gas holder design, as there is no support structure around the gas storage space to mount the gas protection equipments. Standard design of the gas holder only includes a gas relief valve which is typically installed on the gas inlet header. Also, the Code requires the flame arresters and relief valves to be piped in parallel, with a three-way manual change-over valve installed in the common supply piping so that there shall be only one of the flash-back (flame) arresters and one of the pressure relief valves in effective service at all times. The standard membrane holder design does not include flamer arresters installation. Although TSSA will entertain variance from the code to some extent, it requires manufacturers to work closely with TSSA and modify their standard design to meet the Code. System reliability - Inner layer membrane is PVC-coated polyester fabric supported by biogas. Outer layer membrane, which is PVC-coated polyester fabric supported by air Membrane material, is very resistant to minor puncturing and tearing and its physical characteristics (tensile strength, tear strength, bending, flame resistance etc) are tested and certified by DIN standard (German Institute for Standardization). Wind and Snow load is considered in sizing. However, it is not as resilient nor bullet proof as steel or concrete, and is susceptible to sharp object piercing. Maintenance - Low maintenance. It requires typical O&M effort for fan maintenance and belt replacement. The membrane cover can be easily removed for repair or replacement. Footprint- Both slab mounted and tank mounted membranes and the gas building could fit on the proposed gas storage location, i.e. foundation of the old primary clarifier that was demolished in the 90’s. 4.2 Option 2 – Medium Gas Pressure Vessel 4.2.1 Description This option considers storing gas at 200kPa (30 psi) in a steel sphere pressure vessel. To reduce corrosion on gas compressors and the steel vessel, gas from the digesters will first be treated to remove H2S and moisture. In this case, the storage will be located downstream of the gas treatment, where treated gas will first be compressed to 200kPa with a rotary vane type of compressor prior to storage. A pressure regulating valve will be installed at the discharge end of the storage, which regulates the gas pressure and controls the flow entering the cogen system. Rotary vane type compressors are used in this option due to the medium pressure requirement. Compared to other compressors such as reciprocating and centrifugal, rotary vane requires small foot print, is quiet and has little to no vibration. The compressors are designed to allow for 100% redundancy at both average and peak hour flow. To accommodate the wide range of flow, this study assumed three compressors (each with average flow capacity) to be provided. A gas building will be required to house the compressors, gas protection equipment and control panel. Two type of geometry for the pressure vessel were considered: the spherical and the cylindrical type. TM1_BIOGASSTORAGEEVALUATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT27.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 11 BARRIE WPCC BIOGAS STORAGE ALTERNATIVES The spherical steel structure is a patented technology by CB&I. The manufacturer has more than a century of history and has installed more than 3500 spherical pressure vessels worldwide. The two biogas storage sphere in Hamilton Woodward Avenue WWTP and Burlington Skyway WWTP were both constructed by CB&I approximately 30 years ago. CB&I is an engineering, procurement/fabrication and construction (EPC) contractor and typically delivers these spheres in a turnkey basis. The cylindrical type structure is a very common pressure vessel used for compressed gas storage. Unlike the spherical vessel, fabrication is relatively simple without patent issue involve, and there are many more fabricators available in the market. However, fabricators that are familiar with TSSA certification requirement are less than a handful, as the certification requirement is strictly enforced only within the Ontario province. Two local fabrication shops: Alps Welding Inc., and Clemmer Steel Craft, both located in Ontario, were identified to be capable of building a vessel that will meet TSSA’s requirement. Annual operating cost is approximately $18,000 and entails electricity cost (gas compression) and spare parts replacement for gas compressors. Table 3 – Summary of Budgetary Proposals Medium Pressure Vessel Manufacturers CB&I Horton Sphere Footprint 7.5m (D) – Pressure Vessel* 7m (L) x 7m (W) x 5 m (H) - Gas Compressor Building Cylindrical Pressure Vessel 1.9m (D) x 5.9 m (H) - Pressure Vessel Budgetary Cost ($CDN) $ 1,400,000 (includes design, fabrication and onsite installation) $ 25,000 7m (L) x 7m (W) x 5 m (H) - Gas Compressor Building Total Construction Cost † $ 2,140,000 – Horton Sphere pressure vessel $ 1,131,000 – Horizontal cylindrical pressure vessel 4.2.2 Evaluation Technology maturity – Conventional option for biogas storage. There are two established municipal installations in Ontario: Burlington Skyway WWTP and Hamilton Woodward Avenue WWTP. Both installations are more than 25 years old Public safety – The Horton sphere is a common choice of storage used by industries such as oil, gas, petrochemical, chemical and aerospace due to its resilient structure. Hence, its presence poses very low risks to public safety. Its steel surfaces could be frequently painted for advertising or landscaping purpose. * This is the smaller pressure vessel the manufacturer had built to date. † Includes compressor package, piping materials, pressure vessel, installation of equipment and piping, as well as construction cost for the new gas compressor building. Excludes HST, escalation and construction contingency. TM1_BIOGASSTORAGEEVALUATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT27.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 12 BARRIE WPCC BIOGAS STORAGE ALTERNATIVES Code compliance – Fabricator of the medium pressure steel sphere and piping will need to follow ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and CSA B51Boiler, Pressure Vessel and Pressure Piping Code. CB&I has sufficient construction experience to ensure the end product meet these Codes. System reliability - Spherical shape structure offers uniform stress resistance, allowing the vessels to economically contain internal pressures. Vessel may require inspection once every 10 years. Maintenance - Compressors require frequent inspection and occasional maintenance such as oil or filter change, seal, gasket replacement, coupling realignment etc. Footprint- Both sphere structure and the gas building could fit on the proposed gas storage location, i.e. foundation of the old primary clarifier that was demolished in the 90’s. 4.3 Option 3 – Steel Gas Cover 4.3.1 Description This option considers storing gas in a concrete tank roofed with a floating steel gas cover. Ideally, the floating gas cover could be retrofitted in one of the existing digesters by replacing its roof. However, all of the digesters roof in Barrie WPCC were recently overhauled and replaced with new ones during the 76 MLD Expansion Project. Therefore, a new concrete tank housing the floating gas cover is considered for gas storage purpose. The concrete tank will serve as the additional headspace for the digester, and hence will have the same gas pressure as the digesters. A gas header from the digester will be routed to the storage tank. Outlet of the tank will feed gas to the existing gas boosters, subsequently to the gas treatment system and finally to the cogen system. During peak gas flow or when only one cogen engine is operating, the remaining gas not consumed will remain in the storage tank. The gas cover will move up vertically along the guides to compensate the volume change to maintain a given pressure. Storage volume is defined by the diameter of the tank and the cover skirt. The diameter of the cover is optimized to allow for storing 800m3 of gas. The concrete tank will be coated with gas and water proofing layer. To provide double protection from gas leakage, the tank will store minimum level of non-freezing and non-combustible liquid. The tank, unlike typical digester, does not need to account for hydrostatic pressure of sludge, but will be designed to account for gas storing pressure (12 to 15” water column). There are many established manufacturers in North America specializing in this type of technologies such as: Wes Tech Engineering, Ovivo, Olympus Technologies Inc, Siemens and Claro. Two suppliers, Wes Tech Engineering and Ovivo were contacted to obtain budgetary cost for this type of roof. Table 4 – Summary of Budgetary Proposals from Digester Cover Manufacturers Manufacturers / Model Footprint Budgetary Cost ($CDN) Ovivo / G1 Floating Gasholder Cover 21.3 diameter with 1.5m skirt height $463,000 22.3 diameter with 3m skirt height $338,700 Wes Tech Engineering / DCB34 Radial Beam Gasholder Cover TM1_BIOGASSTORAGEEVALUATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT27.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 13 BARRIE WPCC BIOGAS STORAGE ALTERNATIVES Total Construction Cost* $900,000 4.3.2 Evaluation Technology maturity – Popular technology for digester cover. There are many installations in Ontario and across Canada. Public safety – Gas protection equipment will be installed on the roof and safety level is similar to a typical anaerobic digester. Code compliance – Cover design meet CAN/CGA-B105 code. TSSA inspection team is familiar with this type of storage technology. System reliability - Both the concrete tank and the digester cover are structurally stable. Wind and snow load is considered on the cover design. Steel guides, if not installed properly, could get jammed and affect storage performance. Maintenance – Guides on the walls require frequent maintenance. Footprint - The concrete tank will take up the entire foundation of demolished primary clarifier. * includes 4m tall concrete tank, gas piping and gas protection equipment; excludes HST, escalation and construction contingency. TM1_BIOGASSTORAGEEVALUATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT27.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 14 4.4 Summary of Comparison Table 4 summarizes the evaluation of the three storages. For systematic evaluation, each criteria is rated with “♦” symbol. Option with most “♦” indicates the most desirable. Table 5 – Summary of Storage Options Comparison Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Double Membrane Storage Medium Pressure Steel Gas Cover Slab Mounted Tank Mounted Steel Sphere Steel Cylinder Construction Cost, $CDN $750,000 $1,110,000 $2,140,000 $1,131,000 $900,000 Annual O&M Cost, $CDN $3,000 $3,000 $19,000 $19,000 $0 Net Present Value, $CDN ($787,400) ($1,147,000) ($2,380,000) ($1,367,000) ($900,000) ♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦ O&M Cost ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦♦ Technology Maturity ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ Public Safety ♦ ♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦ Code Compliance ♦ ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ System Reliability ♦ ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦ Maintenance ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Footprint ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ 14 14 18 20 17 High risk of Code incompliance and public safety High risk of Code incompliance and public safety High Capital and O&M Cost High O&M Cost Largest Footprint Required. Cannot increase expansion for redundancy Construction Cost Expandability Total number of “♦ ♦” Most Undesirable 15 5 Recommendation Of the three technologies evaluated, it is recommended that the City adopt Option 2B: compress and store biogas in a medium pressure gas cylindrical vessel. Although Option 2B has high O&M cost, its advantages such as mature technology, small footprint and low risk of meeting code compliance outweigh the cost. It’s net present value ranks 2nd highest and is approximately $1.37M over the 20 years. 5.1 Expandability The main purpose of the gas storage is to accumulate the surplus gas for a certain period and use it to operate the second engine for extended hours during peak electricity rate. As gas flow increases, the period to operate two engines increases, hence reducing the storage volume required. As shown in Section 2.2, storage volume required will reduce over the years. However, gas storage could also provide redundancies for cogen engines shut down. The storage volume recommended will allow one of the engine shutdown for 24 hours based on gas flow in 2011 without needing to waste gas. The allowable shutdown time reduces as gas flow increases. By 2016, the allowable shut down time is only 16 hours. For redundancies reason, it is recommended that a second same size storage unit to be installed by 2018 to increase shut down time to 24 hours. Option 2B allows addition of additional storage without the requirement for additional auxiliary equipment. By 2023, the gas production will reach the capacity to operate two cogen engines continuously. At this stage, expansion of the cogeneration system will be required. Figure 9 in Appendix illustrate the expansion plan for the biogas storage facility. 5.2 Biogas Purification System (post evaluation item) During one of the design review meeting, the City raised the question of the feasibility of purifying biogas to natural gas as another biogas utilization alternative. The purified natural gas could either be sold to the Gas Company for revenue or used as a fuel source for the plant’s cogeneration facility. Both options carry financial benefits to the City. However, gas purification is not recommended as an alternative at this stage of upgrade for the following reasons: 1. The gas prices at current Ontario market are relatively low compared to the electricity price. Green electricity initiative such as the Feed-In-Tariff present a higher investment return for the City if the energy recovered is to be sold back to utility as electricity instead of gas. The plant currently has sufficient cogeneration capacity to fully utilize the gas available for power generation. Improving the plant’s storage capacity and the cogeneration engine control presents lower hanging fruit cost savings opportunities compared to constructing a new gas purification facility on site. However, it is recommended that this option be revisited in the future when gas production in the plant exceeds the capacity of the two engines. 2. Although pure natural gas has a higher energy value in kWh/m3, the total energy recovered per volume of biogas remains the same. The engine will require less volume of gas to generate the same amount of energy, and perhaps its efficiency will improve by a 16 BARRIE WPCC BIOGAS STORAGE ALTERNATIVES few percent. However, the additional savings from the improved efficiency will not outweigh the capital cost invested in the gas purification system. TM1_BIOGASSTORAGEEVALUATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT27.DOC COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED 17 APPENDIX A Biogas Storage Sizing Calculations Gas Storage Sizing Estimation Average Biogas, m3/day Year 2009 4080 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 4177 4365 4507 4649 4791 4934 5076 5218 5360 5502 5645 5787 5929 6071 Average Biogas Production, m3/hr Diurnal Peak Biogas Production, m3/hr 174 182 188 194 200 206 211 217 223 229 235 241 247 253 191 200 207 213 220 226 233 239 246 252 259 265 272 278 Average Biogas Biogas Storage Storage Volume,m volume,m3/hr 3 36 44 50 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 642 771 769 854 817 823 817 800 770 729 676 611 534 331 Max % turn down when running 2 2 engines (split) engines Hours of Operation * 1 engine 16 16 14 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 2 854 m3 30167 ft3 * Hours of operation for 1 or 2 engines are determined by maximizing power production during peak hour rate (11am to 7pm). Hours are balanced such that two engines could operate at maximum capacity during the peak hour rate. Diurnal Peak Factor for Biogas Production 1.1 Biogas required for 1 cogen engine 3317.4 m3/day 138 m3/hr Max Power Generation 250 kWe 8 8 10 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 89% 97% 93% 98% 94% 95% 95% 96% 96% 96% 97% 97% 97% 95% BARRIE WPCC BIOGAS STORAGE ALTERNATIVES Annual Average Biogas Production, m3/day 8,000 One (1) 900m3 storage Add one additional 900m 3 storage to increase redundancy * 6,000 4,000 Explore two options: 1) replacing the two 250kW engines with two 350kW engines 2) Construct gas purification system to purify biogas to natural gas quality and sell back to gas utility 2,000 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year 2025 Figure 9 – Biogas Storage Facility Expandability Plan * NOTE: Additional storage could be avoided if redundancy is optimized by scheduling shut down for maintenance during winter (and feed additional biogas to boiler) TM1_BIOGASSTORAGEEVALUATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT27.DOC 20 COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED Appendix D Noise Study Barrie WWTP Co-gen Building Engine Room Noise Summary: Assumptions: 1 Acoustic panels installed on wall/ ceiling will be reduced to 50%. 2 Due to a lack of site specific data, American Gas Association engine exhaust noise data were used for exhaust noise analysis. 3 The west and east bi-fold doors of the engine room are closed. 1 Residential Receptors Existing - one engine operates Existing measured Leq (nighttime) - from Audit Report (Aug-11-2004) Receptor ID (dBA) 51 R1 51 R2 51 R3 48 R4 Modeled Engine Noise Impacts (dBA) 50 48 46 46 Contribution from Other Noise Sources (dBA) 42 48 49 43 Performance Limit (nighttime) (dBA) 49 49 49 48 Proposed - Two Engine operate with addition of roof top exhaust fans Contribution from Other Noise Sources (dBA) 42 48 49 43 Performance Limit (nighttime) (dBA) 49 49 49 48 Proposed - Two Engine operate with addition of rooftop exhaust fans and plenum on upper louvers Modeled Engine Noise Contribution from Other Noise Impacts Sources Receptor ID Calculated Leq (nighttime) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) 52.0 42 R1 52 51.7 48 R2 49 51.5 49 R3 48 48.9 43 R4 48 Performance Limit (nighttime) (dBA) 49 49 49 48 Proposed - Two Engine operate with addition of rooftop exhaust fans and 3 (1.8mx2.8m) acoustic louvers Modeled Engine Noise Contribution from Other Noise Impacts Sources Receptor ID Calculated Leq (nighttime) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) 49.5 42 R1 49 50.3 48 R2 46 50.5 49 R3 45 47.0 43 R4 45 Performance Limit (nighttime) (dBA) 49 49 49 48 Receptor ID Calculated Leq (nighttime) (dBA) 53.6 R1 52.7 R2 52.2 R3 50.2 R4 Modeled Engine Noise Impacts (dBA) 53 51 49 49 2.Predicted Sound Pressure Level at Indoor Receptors (West of Engines) (dBA) Receptor ID Distance to Engine One Engine operates Two Engines operate - no plenum Two Engines operate - plenum Two Engine operate - acoustic louver (m) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) IR1 1 103 104 104 104 IR2 2 100 102 101 101 IR3 3 99 101 101 101 IR4 4 98 101 101 101 IR5 5 98 101 100 100 Ontario Occupational Exposure Limit (dBA) Duration (hr) 85 8 88 4 91 2 94 1 97 0.5 100 0.25