TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Barrie WPCC Biogas Storage Alternatives

PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: DATE:

City of Barrie CH2M HILL Canada Limited 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.

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, 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Daily Diurnal Peak Factor* Projected Average Biogas Production, 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 m /day 3574 3630 3802 Not Available 4177
3

1.10
m /day 4507 4649 4791 4934 5076 5218 5360 5502 5645 5787 5929 6071
3

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

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
Accumulation 3 40m /hr

140m /hr

Gas Storage
900m storage at Standard Conditions (could store for 11 hours)
3

Engine 2

Digesters

(a) 1 engine operation during off-peak hours : Gas accumulation in gas storage

Engine 1
180m /hr
3

Depletion 3 -100m /hr

280m /h

140m /hr

( at Engine 2
140m /hr Operate two engines @ 3 100% (140m /hr) at 10 hours or 3 85% (107m /hr) for 13 hours
3

Gas Storage

Digesters
(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

BARRIE WPCC BIOGAS STORAGE ALTERNATIVES

350
Diurnal Biogas Production Flow in 2011

300

Biogas flow, m 3/hr

250 200
Volume Stored Volume Stored

150 100 50 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
1 Cogen 2 Cogens operating at ~85% for 13 hours 1 Cogen

Hour of the Day

Figure 2 Expected Diurnal Biogas Storage and Operation in 2011

350 300
Diurnal Biogas Production Flow in 2020

Biogas flow, m3 /hr

250 200 150 100 50 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23

2 Cogens operating at 93% for 17 hours 1 Cogen Volume Stored Volume Stored

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

BARRIE WPCC BIOGAS STORAGE ALTERNATIVES

750

75%

500

50%

250

25%

0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

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

% of the day 2 Cogens are operating

1000
Storage Volume Required, m3

Storage Volume

% of a day with 2 cogens

100%

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) Figure 5 (a) Spherical Vessel (Horton Sphere) (b) Hemispherical Steel Pressure Vessel

(b)

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

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

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) Figure 7 (a) Concrete Base Mounted Membrane Holder (b) Tank Mounted Membrane Holder

(b)

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

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

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 Siemens / Dystor (A) Slab Mounted (B) Tank Mounted Wes Tech Engineering / Dupsphere (A) Slab Mounted (B) Tank Mounted Claro Slab Mounted Ovivo Tank Mounted Total Estimated Construction Cost 16m (membrane/tank diameter) $750,000 Slab Mounted $1,100,000 Tank Mounted $242,000 12m $62,000* 12.5m (slab foundation) 17m (membrane/tank diameter) $225,000 $368,000 12m (slab foundation) 16m (membrane diameter) $300,000 $600,000 Footprint Budgetary Cost ($CDN)

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 90s.

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 TSSAs 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 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 Budgetary Cost ($CDN) $ 1,400,000 (includes design, fabrication and onsite installation)

$ 25,000

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 90s.

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 Ovivo / G1 Floating Gasholder Cover Wes Tech Engineering / DCB34 Radial Beam Gasholder Cover Footprint 21.3 diameter with 1.5m skirt height 22.3 diameter with 3m skirt height Budgetary Cost ($CDN) $463,000 $338,700

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 Double Membrane Storage Slab Mounted Construction Cost, $CDN Annual O&M Cost, $CDN Net Present Value, $CDN Construction Cost O&M Cost Technology Maturity Public Safety Code Compliance System Reliability Maintenance Footprint Expandability Total number of Most Undesirable $750,000 $3,000 ($787,400) 14 High risk of Code incompliance and public safety Tank Mounted $1,110,000 $3,000 ($1,147,000) 14 High risk of Code incompliance and public safety Option 2 Medium Pressure Steel Gas Cover Steel Sphere $2,140,000 $19,000 ($2,380,000) 18 High Capital and O&M Cost Steel Cylinder $1,131,000 $19,000 ($1,367,000) 20 High O&M Cost $900,000 $0 ($900,000) 17 Largest Footprint Required. Cannot increase expansion for redundancy Option 3

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. Its 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 plants 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 plants 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 Production, m3/hr 174 182 188 194 200 206 211 217 223 229 235 241 247 253 Diurnal Peak Biogas Production, m3/hr 191 200 207 213 220 226 233 239 246 252 259 265 272 278 Biogas Average Storage Biogas Volume,m Storage volume,m3/hr 3 36 44 50 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 Max 642 771 769 854 817 823 817 800 770 729 676 611 534 331 % turn down when running 2 2 engines (split) engines 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%

Year

Average Biogas, m3/day 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 4080 4177 4365 4507 4649 4791 4934 5076 5218 5360 5502 5645 5787 5929 6071

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

BARRIE WPCC BIOGAS STORAGE ALTERNATIVES

8,000
Annual Average Biogas Production, m3/day
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 COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED

20