NC0000272_ColorTreatmentTechAssessment_19951001

(� COLOR TREATMENT
L TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
j CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
CANTON MILL
CANTON, NORTH CAROLINA
I .J
C'
C
LP
LRust Environment
& Infrastructure

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
COLOR TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
CANTON MILL
CANTON, NORTH CAROLINA
RUST E&I -PROJECT NO. 33858
October 1995
Prepared By:
Rust Environment & Infrastructure
Greenville, South Carolina
Q:\ConceptJ385ffiReport

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1�
1.0 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.1 CANTON MODERNIZATION PROJECT(CMP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
1.2 DESIGN BASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
1.3 COST ESTIMATE BASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
2.0 ALUM COLOR REMOVAL SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.1 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.3 DESIGN BASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
2.3.1 Secondary Effluent Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
2.3.2 SecondaU Effluent Pumps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
2.3.3 T.aboratoiyTesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
2.3.4 Pip Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
2.3.5 Chemical Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
2.3.6 pH Adj ictm�Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
2.3.7 Reactor Clarifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
2.3.8 Sludge edge Dewatering . ste* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
2.3.9 Alum Regeneration Sy$tem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
2.3.10 Tertiary Effluent Pump Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
2.4 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
2.5 BASIS OF ESTIMATED COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
2.6 DRAWINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
2.7 COST DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16
2.8 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20
3.0 LIME COLOR REMOVAL SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
3.3 DESIGN BASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
3.3.1 Secondary Effluent Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
3.3.2 Reaction Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
3.3.3 Lime Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
3.3.4 Lime Kiln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
3.3.5 Lime Slaker and Feeding Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
3.3.6 Color Clarifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
3.3.7 Carbonation Baffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
3.3.8 Carbonation Cla ifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
3.3.9 pH A4justment Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
3.3.10 Sludge Dewatering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
3.3.11 Tertiary Effluent Pump S ation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
Q:\Concept\33858\Report i

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
Pam
3.4 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
3.5 BASIS OF ESTIMATED COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
3.6 DRAWINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
3.7 COST DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14
3.8 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
4.0 POLYAMINE COLOR REMOVAL SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.3 DESIGN BASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
4.3.1 onda Effluent Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
4.3.2 Laboratory T� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
4.3.3 Chemical Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
4.3.4 Sludge dge Dewatering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
4.4 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
4.5 BASIS OF ESTIMATED COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
4.6 DRAWINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
4.7 COST DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11
4.8 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15
5.0 ULTRAFILTRATION SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.1 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
5.3 DESIGN BASIS . . . . . . . .sti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
t .
aa5.3.1 on a Efl n . . . .
5-4
5.3.2 Sand Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
5.3.3 Cleanvell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
5.3.4 Ultmfiltration System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
5.3.5 Ultrafiltration Cleaning System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
5.3.6 Rinse Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
5.3.7 OF Concentrate Storage Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
5.3.8 Evaporator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
5.3.9 Heat Exchanger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
5.3.10 Incinerator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
5.3.11 Cooling Tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
5.3.12 Tertiary Effluent Pump rations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
5.4 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
5.5 BASIS OF ESTIMATED COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
5.6 DRAWINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
5.7 COST DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12
5.8 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16
Q:\Concept\33858\Report II

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
6.0 CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.1 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
6.3 DESIGN BASIS . . . . . . . a. C; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
6.3.1 Secondary Effluent Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
6.3.2 Secondary Effluent Pump Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
6.3.3 pH Adjustment Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
6.3.4 Sulfuric Acid Storage Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
6.3.5 Sand Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
6.3.6 Clearwell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
6.3.7 Carbon Colunins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
6.3.8 Final pH Adjustment Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 6-5
6.3.9 Tertiary Effluent Pump Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
6.3.10 Caustic Storage Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
6.3.11 Regenemnt Make-Up Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6
6.3.12 Evaporator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6
6.3.13 Incinerator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6
6.3.14 Spent Carbon Storage Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6
6.3.15 Thermal Reactivation Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6
6.4 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6
6.5 BASIS OF ESTIMATED COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
6.6 DRAWINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9
6.7 COST DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13
6.8 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-17
7.0 STORAGE AND TIMED RELEASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
Q:\ConcepA33858Vteport ill

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1-1 Secondary Effluent Color Load(lbs/1000 IN Pulp Production)
1-2 Calculated NC/TN State Line Color Concentration (SLc)Using the Model in the
NPDES Permit
2-1 Alum Color Removal System
Flow Diagram
2-2 Alum Color Removal System
General Arrangement
3-1 Lime Color Removal System
Flow Diagram
3-2 Lime Color Removal System
General Arrangement
4-1 Polyamine Color Removal System
Flow Diagram
4-2 Polyamine Color Removal System
- General Arrangement
5-1 Ultrafiltration System
Flow Diagram
5-2 Ultrafiltration System
General Arrangement
6-1 Carbon Adsorption System
Flow Diagram
6-2 Carbon Adsorption System
General Arrangement
Q:\Concept\33858\Report iv

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Champion International Corporation (Champion) is submitting this update to the "Color Treatment
Technology Assessment" reports submitted to the USEPA and NCDEM in 1987 and 1992. These
documents supported the granting by EMC of a variance from USEPA's interpretation of North
Carolina's narrative water quality standard for color in the Pigeon River. On the basis of the 1992
report and the annual technologies report in 1993, USEPA concurred, as a part of its approval of the
triennial water quality rule, that there was no basis for changing the 1988 variance. This information
also supported the issuance of an NPDES permit to Champion's Canton mill by USEPA on
September 25, 1989, which became final and non-appealable on March 12, 1992.
Since submission of the 1992 report, Champion has implemented an aggressive and extensive mill
modernization project the emphasis of which was in-mill pollution prevention. The Canton
Modernization Project(CMP)has resulted in a significant improvement in mill effluent quality. The
effluent color loading has been reduced by 80 to 85% since 1987, mostly as a direct consequence of
the CMP.
In preparing this document, Rust Environment& Infrastructure (Rust) performed an evaluation of
the feasibility of six end-of-pipe alternatives for further color reduction from the effluent generated
under post-CMP conditions. Five of these alternatives were designed to achieve end-of-pipe color
removal, whereas the sixth alternative is designed to store secondary effluent during periods of low
river flow followed by release during higher river flow periods. The results of this evaluation are
summarized in Table ES-1. The 1988 variance required annual technology reviews to determine
whether there were new"break through" technologies capable of meeting the 50 color unit federal
interpretation of the North Carolina narrative water color standard. The 1995 annual technology
report confirmed that there were no such applicable technologies. Consequently, this report reviews
the six technologies identified by NCDEHNR and USEPA as ones holding the most promise.
None of the six alternatives have been demonstrated commercially for an application similar to the
Canton mill. These technologies are therefore not recommended for installation at the Canton mill.
Technologies such as alum and lime treatment could theoretically achieve the target color value of
50 color units at the end of the mixing zone at a high cost. However, neither of these technologies
are commercially demonstrated. Both technologies were attempted at full scale but neither
technology achieved desired levels of color reduction.
It is also theoretically possible that carbon adsorption and ultrafiltration technologies may achieve the
color treatment objective. However, the number of carbon adsorption vessels and ultrafiltration units
necessary to achieve consistent compliance with the color target value would be cost prohibitive.
Furthermore, there are no commercial installations of these technologies in applications similar in size
or complexity to the Canton mill.
Polyamine treatment was incapable of achieving the target color levels based on bench scale tests
performed with Canton mill secondary effluent.
Q:IConcept13385Meport ES-1

' 1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
Section 1 of this report provides some background about the project; Sections 2 through 6 provide
a description and cost estimate for five color removal alternatives; and Section 7 summarizes the
evaluation of the Storage and Timed Release alternative.
The Gross Margin test will be applied to assess the economic viability of the color removal
alternatives. Results of the Gross Margin test will be submitted as a supplement to this document.
Q:\ConceptV385Meport ES-2

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF 1995 ASSESSMENT OF COLOR REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES
LIME OR POI AMINE lvo U
..........
DEMONSTRATED TO
ACHIEVE 50 PPM AT
END OF MIXING NO NO NO NO NO NO
ZONE?
TOTAL CAPITAL $44,637,000 $57,420.000 $34.685,000 $141.167,000 $102.529,000 Not determined
COSTS
TOTAL ANNUAL $24,800,000 $21,459,000 $13.781,000 $30,004,000 $23,890,000 Not determined
COSTS
ISSUES a.No known a.No known commercial a.No known commercial a.No known commercial a.No known commercial a.Technically impossible at
commercial installations installations for an installations for.n installations for an application installations for an current mill loads.
for an application application similar to the application similar to the similar to the Canton mill. application similar to the
similar to the Canton Canton mill. Canton mill. Canton mill. b.Requires installation of a
mill. b Technology may be color removal technology to be
b.Theoretically capable b.Treatment process is incapable of achieving target b.Technology may be feasible.
b.Theoretically capable of achieving color target technically incapable of color objective. incapable of achieving target
of achieving color of So units at the end of achieving target of SO color color objective.
target of 50 units at the the mixing zone, units. c.Downstream site required
end of the mixing zone. due to inadequate space on c.Downstream site required
c.Downstream site site. due to inadequate space on
c.Downstream site required due to site.
required due to inadequate space on site. c.Downstream site required d.Incinerator necessary.
inadequate space on due to inadequate space on d.Incinerator necessary.
site. d Effluent total dissolved site. e.New air permits required.
solids(TDS)likely to e.New air permits required.
d Effluent total increase by20to25%. d.Incinerator necessary.
dissolved solids(TDS)
likely to increase by 20 e.May require add on o.Now air permits required.
to25%. process for TDS removal
at additional cost.
e.May require add on
process for TDS f.Incinerator necessary.
removal at additional
cost. g. New air permits
required.
f.New air permits
required.
Q:\Concept\338581Report ES-3 Rev.2

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton.North Carolina
1.0 BACKGROUND
Champion International Corporation(Champion) owns and operates a bleached kraft pulp and paper
mill in Canton, North Carolina. Process wastewater from the production facility is treated in a
secondary treatment system consisting of mechanical screening, primary clarification, activated sludge
biological treatment, and secondary clarification. The wastewater discharge is regulated under a
NPDES permit.
In 1987, EPA took over the NPDES permitting authority for the Canton Mill and issued a draft
permit requiring Champion to meet an absolute 50 true color unit standard set by EPA for the Pigeon
River immediately below the Canton Mill. Based on the inability of"state-of-the-art"technologies
to economically achieve the water quality standard, Champion applied for and received from the
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC), a variance from the 50 color unit
standard for the North Carolina portion of the Pigeon River in 1988. The July 1988 EMC variance
set a water quality limit no greater than 85 color units true color (weekly average) at the North
Carolina/Tennessee border.EPA deemed the North Carolina variance to be the equivalent of meeting
a 50 color unit standard at the border on a 30 day average basis.
As a condition of the variance, Champion is required to study and evaluate color removal
technologies and report its findings annually to the Division of Environmental Management and the
Division of Environmental Management is required to review the variance each time it undertakes its
triennial review of the Water Quality Standards. The variance also included a condition that,after
completion of the Canton Modernization Project (CMP), the variance would be reviewed by a
Variance Review Committee of the EMC. This document is being submitted to the Variance Review
Committee as part of the post CMP review.
Six alternatives are reviewed in this document that are as follows:
• Alum Color Removal System
• Lime Color Removal System
• Polyamine Color Removal System
• Ultrafrltration System
• Carbon Adsorption System
• Storage and Timed Release
Q:\Concept\338581Report 1-I

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
A detailed review of the technical viability of these alternatives is presented in Sections 2,through
7 of this report. Also included in these sections are estimates of capital and annual operating costs
for implementation of these alternatives.
1.1 CANTON MODERNIZATION PROJECT(CMP)
In February 1988, Champion embarked upon a major modernization of the Canton Mill.
Construction for this project was initiated in 1990 and completed in 1994. The modernization was
designed to use"state-of-the-art" demonstrated technology to assure the continued operation of the
Mill and to reduce the long-term average color load by at least 50%.
Consistent with Champion's belief that pollution prevention is preferable to pollution treatment,the
CMP focused on in-process color prevention measures. The final design called for complete
substitution of the molecular chlorine used in the first bleaching stage with chlorine dioxide,oxygen
delignification, and bleaching at medium pulp consistency. The CMP also included other process
controls, including improved pulp washers and comprehensive systems to recover process losses.
Completion of the CMP resulted in a significant reduction in color and flow. Figures 1.1 and 1.2
illustrate the impacts of the CMP on the color load from the mill. Note that the actual color loading
was reduced by 80 to 85%(compared with 1987 values) mostly as a direct consequence of the CMP.
Champion's post-CMP average effluent color discharge of approximately'27 pounds per thousand
pounds of pulp product is one of the lowest color discharges among comparable bleached kraft mills
in the United States. This average color discharge value is also approximately one third of the
technology based limit proposed by EPA under the Cluster Rule.
In addition to reducing color discharges,the CMP has also resulted in a significant improvement in
the final effluent quality in terms of conventional wastewater treatment parameters such as BODS and
TSS. In fact,the Canton mill has been recognized by EPA as one of the lowest dischargers of BODS
and TSS in the pulp and paper industry.
(� Q:\ConceptU3&58\Report 1-2
I

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
1.2 DESIGN BASIS
A skew analysis (Log Pearson III)was applied to each of the parameters to provide a representative
design basis: 'The skew analysis technique was utilized since wastewater treatment data is typically
not normally distributed.
The basis for the conceptual design and cost estimates for the color removal systems are summarized
below:
Average Flow - 25.7 MGD
Peak Flow - 39 MGD
Average Color - 70,900 lb/day
Maximum Color - 133,200 lb/day
Average TSS - 2;900 lb/day
Maximum TSS - 8,100 lb/day
These values are based on actual mill operating data from April 1, 1994 through August 31, 1995
which is representative of post-CMP effluent conditions. The treatment units are sized to handle the
maximum loadings within a 99% confidence interval. Sizing treatment units to handle the 99%
loading values would insure reliable treatment performance under worst case conditions. This would
be especially critical since the Canton Mill does not have any dedicated surge capacity for wastewater.
It should be noted that even with this conservative design basis,the loading to the treatment system
could exceed the design peak values approximately 4 days per year. The mill would be expected
to exceed the 50 color unit effluent limit on those days. Depending on coincident river flows,
exceedance of the effluent limit may not cause a violation of the U.S.EPA water quality standard in
the stream,due to relatively high flows.
1.3 COST ESTIMATE BASIS
The color treatment technology assessment reports submitted in 1987 and 1992 were used as the
basis for update of costs in a majority of cases. Sizes and quantities of equipment items were adjusted
proportional to the change in color and/or wastewater flow. Equipment costs were then adjusted
L'
Q:\Concept\43858Vteport 1-3

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
appropriately. Vendor quotes were obtained for any new equipment (sizes, types) to the extent
possible. Engineering judgement, the six-tenths cost estimating tole, and in-house cost data from
similar type projects were otherwise used.
All costs are presented in July, 1995 dollars. Additional land will be necessary to implement all of
the alternatives. The land necessary for installation of new equipment is owned by Champion.
However, since the Champion owned property is located approximately 1 mile from the main mill
area, it is anticipated that Champion will need to acquire some additional private or City owned
properties between the new treatment area and the existing mill treatment area. This will be necessary
for installation of piping and other utilities between the two treatment areas. Costs for this additional
land acquisition are included. It was assumed that this land can be purchased from the individual
landowners and/or from the City of Canton.
All labor costs are based on merit shop labor with construction forces working a nominal 40-hour
week with some occasional overtime. Labor rates were calculated for general construction labor and
civil/structural construction labor (see Table Ll). General construction labor is estimated to be
$18.43 per hour and civil/structural construction labor is estimated to be $18.13 per hour.
The construction costs were typically factored off equipment costs using historical factors from
similar type and size projects. However, construction costs for utilities between the proposed
treatment site and the present mill were estimated using a material takeoff approach.
Q:\Concept03&58\Report 1-4

Figure 1-1
Secondary Effluent Color Load (lbs/1000 Ibs Pulp Production)
for the Canton Mill
Monthly Averages from 1/87-9/95
225
EPA's Proposed Cluster Rule Limit for the
200 Bleached Kraft Category of the Pulp and Paper
Industry =76.3 lbs/1000 lbs pulp.
175
a150 '
c
0 125 - �
y
a
c 100
U
d
e
w 75
50
25-
0
N N N M M
0p0 OD 00 0pC0 00 00 00 00 00 TCO
ed e�C m of m d m cTC aai eai td td aai eGC cTC d A eTJ etl eTtl N �tl id

Figure 1-2
Calculated NC/TN State Line Color Concentration (SLc) Using the Model in the NPDES Permit
for the Canton Mill
Monthly Averages from 1/87-9/95
250 -
225
200
175
150
125 -
100
75
50 -
25
0
l� W W GO T N N N M M M 7 d' d' V) V1 V1
tid cGJ q Cnl cC1 tTE a) .CJ 0 N cC9 0 N tGC N eM c0 N ed N cCJ c0 d)

' 1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
(� Additional chemical addition and clarification equipment would be provided to recover the alum from
f process sludge.Equipment would be included to dewater the sludge. A fluidized bed incinerator and
r all ancillary equipment would be provided to incinerate color causing materials in the sludge and to
vl i� recover alum ash for regeneration with sulfuric acid for reuse. Tertiary effluent would then be
pumped through new piping to the present wastewater treatment area for discharge at the existing
outfall.
2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Effluent from the existing wastewater treatment plant would flow by gravity to the alum treatment
system through a 72-inch diameter underground reinforced concrete cylinder pipe. The nominal flow
rate through the pipe would be 25.7 MGD, while the maximum flow rate would be 39 MGD. The
site is approximately one mile downstream from the mill on the Pigeon River, and immediately north
-' of Fibreville.
The wastewater would flow into a pH adjustment basin sized for 2 minutes retention time at 39
MGD. The basin would be a concrete structure, 30 ft x 24 ft x 12 ft deep and would be equipped
with baffles and two mechanical agitators. Alum would be fed into this basin at a dose of 1,000 mg/L
together with any sulfuric acid necessary to adjust the pH to 5.5. The alum would be a mixture of
regenerated alum mud and makeup (50%) liquid alum. Makeup requirements were assumed to
constitute approximately 5%of the total alum requirements.
In addition to alum and sulfuric acid, the basin would receive flue gas scrubber water from the
incinerator and filtrate from the dregs screen separator in the alum recovery system.
w� The wastewater flow would then be split between two (2)reactor clarifiers operating in parallel. The
floc, produced as a result of the alum reacting with color compounds in the wastewater, would be
allowed to settle in the clarifiers. The clarifier; would be concrete structures, 180 feet in diameter
with a 15 feet sidewater depth. The surface overflow rate (SOR) at peak flow conditions would be
I 765 gpd/ft, with a retention time of approximately 4 hours.
f Wastewater would enter the clarifier through a conical-shaped reaction well located at the center of
the clarifier. The wastewater would then flow through the well to the clarification section of the unit
f�
Q:\ConcepA3385Meport 2-2
L

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
` Canton.North Carolina
rDual 100% capacity alum feed pumps would be provided to feed an alum dose of 1,000 mg/l to the
wastewater. The alum feed rate would be automatically adjusted proportional to the flow of
j wastewater by using variable speed drives on the pumps.
Dregs that settle out in the batch reactor would flow to a dregs washing tank where they would be
washed with mill water prior to being separated in a stationary screen separator and hauled to the
landfill. The tank would be a tile-lined steel structure with a side mounted agitator similar to the
(� batch reactor. Pumps would be provided to transfer the washed dregs slurry to the screen separator.
Sulfuric acid (66° Baume) for pH adjustment of the incoming wastewater and for the alum
jregeneration process would be stored in a tank that would have adequate capacity for one week of
storage.Dual 100%capacity metering pumps, controlled by a pH controller, would feed acid to the
pH adjustment basin. Dual 100%capacity centrifugal pumps,manually-controlled would feed acid
i to the batch reactor.
A dry polymer dilution and feed system would also be provided to add a coagulant aid to the
wastewater prior to clarification to assist in solids settling. The system would consist of a dry
polymer hopper for receiving bagged polymer, an auger feeder, mixing tank with agitator ttansfer
pump, storage tank, and feed pump.
A building was included to house the central control room, laboratory facilities, lunch area, and
P restrooms.
f 2.3 DESIGN BASIS
The following is a summary of the design basis for the conceptual design and cost estimate for the
alum color reduction system. Design conditions were based on historical data (Flow, BOD, TSS)
provided by Champion. Design chemical doses and sludge quantities were based on bench scale
f P'
yll testing performed at the Champion mill with composite samples of secondary effluent. Sludge
consistencies from various stages of the treatment process were estimated based on engineering
judgement. No testing was performed to confirm the sludge consistency estimates. Equipment sizing
was based primarily on experience with similar equipment and processes as well as engineering
judgement.
QAConcepA33&5Meport 2-5
i1

r 1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
4� Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
yl
11. Solids consistencies for the various stages of the alum recovery process were assumed values
based on engineering judgement. No sludge dewatering trials were performed to establish
practically achievable sludge consistencies.
12. It was noted during bench scale trials that the alum treated effluent contained some floating
solids. During cost estimation,no provisions were made for sand filtration of the alum treated
effluent. Should sand filtration be necessary at full scale to maintain final TSS concentrations
within NPDES discharge limits,the costs would be increased significantly. Equipment costs
for the sand filtration system would be as high as $5,000,000.
2.5 BASIS OF ESTIMATED COST
r� The process design for this color removal system was based on bench scale testing. Since no
commercial applications are known to exist at as large a scale,as the Canton mill, pilot testing would
be necessary to establish the viability of the process and to develop firm design parameter;.
The estimated costs for this system were based on the bench scale testing results. If the pilot testing
were to indicate major changes to the system, the cost estimates would increase proportionate to the
necessary changes. Costs for additional pilot testing are included.
iiThe estimated design and construction time required for this project is 24 to 30 months. This does
0� not include any time associated with permitting related activities. Installation of this tertiary treatment
system may require a PSD permit. PSD permitting in close proximity to at least two Class I areas
(Great Smokey Mountain National Park and Shining Rock Wilderness Area) would require extensive
analysis,permit reviews and a public hearing. PSD pennit analysis and review would likely take more
than 24 months. This would be in addition to the 24 to 30 months anticipated for design and
construction of the system. Since the start date for the project is unknown at this time, all costs are
presented in July, 1995 dollars without any escalation.
{/ The cost for land necessary for the installation of pipelines between the mill and the Fibreville site is
J included. It is assumed that this land could be purchased from the individual home owners and the
City of Canton. Other relevant cost basis assumptions were summarized earlier in Section 1.4.
QAConceptU385Meport 2-11

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
�t
DRAWINGS
t
Q:\ConceptU3858\Report 2-13

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton.North Carolina
2.7 COST DATA
Cost estimates for the alum color removal system are attached. Included are summary tables for the
total capital cost and annual operating costs.
I
n
Q:\ConceptV3&5Meport 2-16

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton.North Carolina
COST DATA SUMMARY TABLES
Q:\ConcepA43858\Report 2-17

'mom Imo® imime
CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION ALUM COLOR REMOVAL SYSTEM
CANTON,NORTH CAROLINA
RUST E&I PROJECT N338SI CAPITAL COST SUMMARY 19-Sep-95
MATERIAL LABOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
N UNIT PRICE N UNIT PRICE E UIP-N Q MAT'ERI- LABOR SUBCON TOTAL REMARKS
I ROCESSE UIPMENI AIENT ALS TRACT
78,306,6]e 575,606 f408,501 SO f8,]90,]84
2 CIVI/STRUCTURAL
$0 S 41425] $1 558579 so f1 SBI836
3 AC
szOs400 su9loo suo a so sO4e1s
4 SING. -
52003 04 $2695247 $3524928 SO 582140]9
5 ELECTRICAL
$360,000 5922,000 5420,500 so 51,703,500
6 STRUMENFATION
51914,525 f0 $403.631 so SI,31a157
7 SULATION
So 5232,40o s0 SO 5232,400
8 HINTING
9 AC UISITION a6 f1990 549,840 5149,200 3_%OFEQUIPMENT COST
$520,000 8 ACRES f65,000/ACRE
OTAti DIRECT COSTS '- $M790,507 S6;667 70 16.076 91
So 326,054,771
10 CONTRACTOR'S OVERHEAD
7
11 OWNER'S PROTECT ADMINISTRATION f 91553 120%OF TOTAL LABOR
S 084392 8%OF TOTAL DIRECT COST
12 SALES AND USE TAXES
f728 9 M OF TOTAL MATERIAL&LABOR
OTALOVEI2HEAD -. -. .,.:: ,
:;f10,f lA
13 NGINEERING
$2 605477 I O%OF TOTAL DIRECT COST
OTAB INDIRECT COSTS ..� -:> ;,: . ....
'511,'/f9�750
OTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS ..
s3es5
14 CONTINGENCY
fsen lR 15%OFTOTALCONSTRUCTIONCOST
-" TOTAL CAPITAL COST
sa4636]ao

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
2.8 REFERENCES
The following is a list of references used to prepare this section.
1. Sirrine Environmental Consultants, Effluent Color Treatment Reports from April. 1987 -
hamoion International Corvoration, April 1987.
2. SEC Donohue, Color Treatment Technology Assessment - Champion International
CorWration,July 1992.
3. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering7 Treatment. Disposal and Reuse, Second
Edition,McGraw Hill Company, 1979.
4. E. W. Lang and R. F. Miller, Color Increase of Treated Kraft Mill Effluents, TAPPI
Environmental Conference Proceedings, 1977.
5. Champion International Corporation, 1995 Color Removal Technology Report, April 1995.
Q:\Concepr03858\Report 2-20

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton.North Carolina
3.0 LIME COLOR REMOVAL SYSTEM
3.1 SUMMARY
This section addresses color removal by lime in a tertiary treatment system.
The estimated capital cost of this system is $57,420,000, based on July, 1995 costs and the
assumptions summarized in Sections 3.4 and 3.5. The accuracy of this estimate is+30%, -15%. This
estimate includes direct and indirect costs,as well as land acquisition and permitting. The total annual
costs for this system are estimated to be $21,459,000. The annual costs include operating and
maintenance costs,as well as interest and depreciation.
The capital and annual costs were estimated based on the assumption that the tertiary treated effluent
would meet all other applicable water quality requirements of the mill NPDES permit. The TDS of
the effluent is expected to increase by 20 to 25%as a consequence of the tertiary treatment process.
If the final effluent TDS levels pose a water quality concern,additional treatment (reverse osmosis,
ion exchange) may be necessary. Equipment costs for a TDS removal system could be as high as
$50,000,000. Annual operating costs for the TDS removal system could be of the same order as the
lime treatment system.
Recent bench scale testing with post CMP secondary effluent indicated that this technology could
theoretically achieve the effluent color standard of 50 units at the end of the mixing zone. However,
there are no known full scale installations of this technology for an application similar to the Canton
mill. In the 1970s full scale lime treatment for color removal was attempted at two mills: the
Interstate Paper mill in Riceboro, Georgia,and Continental Can in Hodge,Louisiana. Both systems
were abandoned due to their failure to meet the color treatment objective. This technology is
therefore not recommended for installation at the Canton mill.
The system would be designed for a peak secondary effluent color load of 133,200 pounds per day.
Space necessary to implement this alternative is not available in the present mill area. Therefore,
property owned by Champion approximately one mile downstream and north of Fibreville would be
utilized. Treated secondary effluent would flow through new piping to the treatment area. New
reactor clarification equipment would be provided to add necessary quantities of lime to the effluent
and precipitate the color forming materials as a sludge.
Q:\Concept\33&5Meporr 3-1

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
A dewatering system,a new lime kiln and some ancillary equipment would be provided to incinerate
color forming materials in the process sludge and recover lime for reuse. Tertiary effluent would be
pumped through new piping to the present wastewater treatment area for discharge at the existing
outfall.
3.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Secondary effluent from the existing wastewater treatment plant would flow by gravity to the lime
treatment system through a 72-inch diameter underground reinforced concrete cylinder pipe. The
design average flow rate through the pipe would be 25.7 MGD,and the maximum flow rate would
be 39 MGD. The site is approximately one mile downstream from the mill on the Pigeon River,and
immediately north of Fibreville.
The wastewater would flow into a reaction basin sized for 15 minutes retention time at the design
maximum flow rate of 39 MGD. The basin would be a concrete structure, 60 feet x 60 feet x 16 feet
deep and would be equipped with baffles and four mechanical agitators. Lime slurry would be fed
into the reaction basin to be mixed with the incoming wastewater.
The wastewater flow would be split between two dual flocculating clarifier;operating in parallel. The
floc produced as a result of the reaction between lime and the color compounds in the wastewater
would be allowed to settle in the clarifiers. The clarifiers would be concrete structures, 180 feet in
diameter with a 15 foot sidewater depth. The design peak surface overflow rate for each clarifier
would be 765 gpd/ft2 and the minimum hydraulic retention time would be approximately 4 hours.
Wastewater would enter the clarifier in a flocculation well located at the center of the clarifier. The
wastewater would then flow through the well to the clarification section of the unit where solids
would be allowed to settle. Rake arms would be provided to continually move the settled solids
inward to the sludge removal zone where they would be removed through sludge piping. Due to the
dense nature of the lime sludge,the mechanism would have a higher than normal torque rating. The
rake arms would be driven by a constant speed drive. The treated wastewater would then leave the
unit through an effluent launder.
A carbonation basin would be provided to adjust the pH of the wastewater to 10.5 and to convert
dissolved calcium hydroxide to calcium carbonate prior to final settling in the carbonation clarifier.
The carbonation basin would be a concrete structure designed to provide 2 minutes of retention time
Q:1Concept\33&5Meport 3.2

1995 Color Treatment Technologic Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canon.North Carolina
at a 39 MGD wastewater flow. A sparging system consisting of 316 stainless steel piping and
nozzles would be installed in the carbonation basin. The basin would also include two mechanical
agitators to achieve complete mixing of carbon dioxide with the wastewater.
Commercially available carbon dioxide would be used for the carbonation system. A carbon dioxide
storage and feed system would be provided complete with liquid CO, storage tank, vaporizers,
control valves and piping.
The carbonation clarifiers would be conventional type clarifiers without the center flocculation zone.
The clarifiers, would be used to settle the calcium carbonate sludge formed in the carbonation
process. The center drive units and rake mechanisms would be similar to the tertiary clarifiers
described above.
The pH of wastewater exiting the carbonation clarifier would be adjusted between 6.0 and 8.5 s.u.
in a pH adjustment basin. The basin would be sized to provide 2 minutes retention time for reaction
of wastewater with 66° Baume sulfuric acid. The acid would be pumped from a carbon steel storage
tank using diaphragm-type metering pumps. The sulfuric acid storage tank would be designed to
store one week's supply of acid. The two metering pumps would each be rated for 100% of the
desired capacity.
Following pH adjustment, the wastewater would be pumped back to the existing outfall at the mill
wastewater treatment plant for discharge to the Pigeon River. Three pumps would be provided, each
with a capacity of 14,000 gpm,which is approximately 50%of the design maximum flow rate. The
wastewater would be returned through a 54-inch diameter underground reinforced concrete cylinder
pipe.
Sludge from each clarifier, at 3%consistency,would be pumped to a common sludge blend tank with
one hour's retention time. Dual 100% capacity pumps would be provided for each clarifier. The
sludge blend tank would be an open top carbon steel tank, and equipped with top-mounted agitators
and baffles.
Sludge would be pumped from the sludge blend tank to three vacuum precoat filters where it would
be dewatered and concentrated to a consistency of about 40% solids. Each filter would be sized for
50% of the sludge flow. The precoat would be a 25% calcium carbonate slurry that would be
prepared in the precoat mix tank from bagged calcium carbonate and mill water. Filtrate from the
QAConceptV3&5Meport 3-3

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton.North Carolina
vacuum filters would be pumped back to the reaction tank to be mixed with the incoming wastewater.
The sludge handling and dewatering equipment would be housed in a prefabricated metal building.
The dewatered sludge would be discharged from the vacuum filters to a screw conveyor that would
transfer it to a lime kiln where the sludge would be burned for lime recovery. The lime kiln would
have a design capacity of 300 tons/day and would be fired with No. 2 fuel oil. A storage tank with
a one week's supply of fuel oil and a pump and heater set to transfer fuel oil to the lime kiln would
be provided.
Combustion gases from the lime kiln would pass through a venturi scrubber where particulate matter
would be removed by scrubbing with mill water. The scrubber waste would be returned to the
reaction basin at the head end of the tertiary treatment system. The combustion gases would be
released to a stack. All materials likely to come in contact with the flue gas would be corrosion
resistant.
Rebumed lime from the lime kiln would be sent by a drag line conveyor and bucket elevator to a lime
storage silo with a 3 day storage capacity. The silo would be provided with a dust collection system
and bin vibrators. A pneumatic unloading.system would be provided for truck shipments of make up
lime.
Dual lime feeders of 100% capacity each would feed lime to two 50% capacity lime slakers. The
slakers would use mill water heated to 120OF with 30 psi steam from the mill to produce a 10% lime
slurry. A dregs washing and handling system would be provided for the slakers.
Dual 100%capacity lime slurry transfer pumps would pump the lime slurry to a storage tank with a
2-hour capacity. An agitator would be provided to keep the slurry in suspension. Dual 100%
capacity feed pumps would feed the lime slurry to the reaction basin to mix with incoming
wastewater. The feed rate would be proportional to the wastewater flow rate. The pumps would
be equipped with variable speed drives that would be controlled by a flow controller in the
wastewater line.
A building would be included to house the central control room, laboratory facilities, lunch area,and
restrooms.
Q:\ConceptU385Meport 3-4

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton.North Carolina
3.3 DESIGN BASIS
The following is a summary of the basis for the conceptual design and cost estimate of the lime color
removal system. Design conditions were based on recent bench scale tests performed with post CMP
secondary effluent. The equipment sizing was based primarily on experience with similar equipment
and processes and on engineering judgement.
3.3.1 Secondaa Effluent Characteristics
Average Flow - 25.7 MGD
Peak Flow - 39 MGD
Average Color - 70,900 lb/day
Maximum Color - 133,200 lb/day
Average TSS - 2,900 lb/day
Maximum TSS - 8,100 lb/day
3.3.2 Reaction Basin
The basin would be sized for 15 minutes hydraulic retention at design peak flow
Volume= 54,300 cubic feet.
3.3.3 Lime Storage
The silo would be sized for 3 days storage.
Volume = 32,530 cubic feet.
The unit would be complete with dust collection system and bin vibrators. Dual lime feeders @ 100%
capacity each would be provided with pneumatic unloading facilities.
QAConcept03&5Meport 3-5

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
3.3.4 Lime Kiln
Provided a kiln with 300 tons per day capacity feed by No. 2 fuel oil. Provided storage tank heaters,
etc.
3.3.5 Lime Slaker and Feeding Facilities
Provided 2 slakers at 50% capacity. Water for slaking would be heated with 30 psi mill steam. Lime
would be fed as a 10%solids slurry. Provided lime storage tank for 2 hour storage. Provided dreg
washing and handling capability.
3.3.6 Color Clarifiers
• Solids contact flocculator clarifiers would be appropriate for this application.
• Average Surface Overflow Rate per clarifier=500 gpd/ft2
• Peak Surface Overflow Rate per clarifier= 765 gpd/ft2
• Hydraulic retention time would be 4 hours at peak flow.
3.3.7 Carbonation Basin
Sized for 2 minutes hydraulic retention time at peak flow rate. Provided stainless steel distribution
system for injection of CO2 gas into waste stream. Mechanical mixers would also be provided.
3.3.8 Carbonation Clarifier
• Used conventional design clarifiers.
• Average Surface Overflow Rate per clarifier=500 gpd/ft2
• Peak Surface Overflow Rate per clarifier= 765 gpd/ft2
• Hydraulic retention time would be 4 hours at peak flow.
QAConceptV385Meport 3-6

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton.North Carolina
3.3.9 pH Adjustment Basin
Sized for 2 minutes hydraulic retention at peak flow volume. Facilities would be included for sulfuric
acid storage and addition.
3.3.10 Sludge Dewatering
• Provided sludge storage for 1 hour.
• Provided dual pumps from storage @ 100% capacity each.
• Loading rate of rotary precoat vacuum filters - 250 lbs/day per square foot.
• Used 3 filters, each designed for 50% capacity.
• Cake consistency - 40% solids (assumed)
3.3.11 Tertiary Effluent Pump Station
• Used 3 pumps,each @ 50% capacity for peak flow.
• Pumping rate- 12,000 gpm each.
• Provided a 54"diameter pipeline to existing outfall.
Q:\ConceptV3&5Meport 3-7

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
3.4 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions were made in developing the process design for the lime color removal
system:
1. The process design was based on bench scale test results. Bench scale data were used since
there are no known commercial installations of this technology for an application similar to
the Canton mill. Pilot testing would have to be performed to further assess the technical
feasibility of the technology and to confirm design parameters.
2. Land required for piping could be purchased from individual home owners.
3. Relocation of water,natural gas,and sewer services presently buried beneath the roadway to
the site would not be required.
4. The addition of lime and other chemicals to the wastewater would result in a 20 to 25%
increase in the total dissolved solids concentration of the discharge. Removal of dissolved
solids (if necessary to comply with water quality or toxicity limits) would require further
treatment by an ion exchange or reverse osmosis process. Equipment costs for such a system,
if proven feasible, could be as high as $50,000,000.
5. Site work and excavation costs did not account for the presence of or hardpan in the area.
If these materials were encountered, the estimated costs would increase. Subsurface
exploration and testing has not been done at the site. Rock excavation costs for installation
of the pipelines between the existing wastewater treatment system and the proposed tertiary
treatment system could be as high as $1,500,000.
6. The process design and costs are based on the premise that the color reduction would be
performed in a tertiary treatment system Lime treatment in the existing primary clarifiers was
also considered. However this approach was believed to be inappropriate for the following
reasons:
• Experience at other mills (E. W. Lang and R. L. Miller, TAPPI Environmental
Conference Proceedings, 1977) suggests that color reversion may occur through the
secondary treatment system.
Q:\ConceptV3858\Report 3-8

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
• The Canton mill has no equalization facilities. It would be both difficult and
impractical to maintain a consistent color quality exiting the primary clarifiers due to
the fluctuations in influent wastewater characteristics.
• The influent wastewater to the primary clarifiers contains relatively high
concentrations (> 500 mg/L) of primary solids. If lime were added at the primary
clarifiers, a significant fraction of the resultant sludge would be primary solids. The
presence of the primary solids would render the lime recovery concept technically
infeasible and economically impractical.
8. Operation of the lime kiln would result in emissions to the atmosphere of particulates,
hydrocarbons, SOZ, and NO,. It was assumed that an air permit could be obtained to operate
the lime kiln.
9. A permit could be obtained for Tune sludge disposal when the kiln is out of service. It is
anticipated that the kiln would be out of service approximately 20 days per year for
maintenance activities.
10. Sludge consistencies presented for various stages of the treatment process were assumed
values based on engineering judgement. No sludge dewatering trials were performed.
3.5 BASIS OF ESTIMATED COST
The process design for this color removal system was based on bench scale testing. Bench scale
testing was necessary since there are no known commercial installations of this technology for an
application similar to the Canton mill. The estimated costs for this system are based solely on the
bench scale test results. The actual costs for full scale implementation may be higher.
The estimated design and construction time required for this project is 24 to 30 months. This
duration does not include any time associated with permitting and related activities. Installation of
this tertiary treatment system may require a PSD permit. PSD permitting in close proximity to at
least two Class I areas (Great Smokey Mountain National Park and Shining Rock Wilderness Area)
would require extensive analysis, permit reviews and a public hearing. PSD permit analysis and
review would likely take more than 24 months. This would be in addition to the 24 to 30 months
anticipated for design and construction of the system.
Q:\ConceptUMWeport 3-9

.1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton.North Carolina
3.6 DRAWINGS
Included in this section are the following drawings related to the lime color removal system:
Figure 3.1 -Flow Diagram
Figure 3.2 - General Arrangement
Q:\ConceptU3&58\Report 3-10

1995 Color Treatment Technologv Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
DRAWINGS
Q:\Concept\3385&Beport 3-11

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton.North Carolina
3.7 COST DATA
Cost estimates for the lime color removal system are attached. Included are summary tables for the
total capital cost and annual operating costs.
Q:\ConceptW385Meport 3-14

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
COST DATA SUMMARY TABLES
Q:\Concept33&5Meport 3-15

CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LIME COLOR REMOVAL SYSTEM
CANTON,NORTH CAROLINA
RUST E&1 PROJECT 0033858 CAPITAL COST SUMMARY 19-Sep-95
"� - - MATERIAL LABOR .
REM11 DESCRIPTION :s<..<; �. :.;:;>. '.'.x. _,a. -> i<::;i> .. >.:.::q UNITT PRICE q UNIT PRICE EQUEN MATERI- LABOR SUBCON 70TAL ..xx KS
q
1 PROCESS EQUIPMENT MST AIS TRACT
S11033 US S103287 51,788,96E SO f137/9,78/
2 CIVNSTRUCTURAL SO S) 02690 SI8)64)6 SO S5129126
3 HVAC $205100 51191oo SILO 16 so fU/816
4 PIPING
S2003904 S2 13]]1 S1618 91 SO s8536 m
5 ELECTRICAL
2360000 S2 012,000 s683,0o0 So 53,113000
6 INSTRUMIENTATION
S2,013.916 SO Sd28,d82 SO S 1111,d08
7 INSULATION so $162/0o so so $162100
8 PAINTING
s]65,)27 S66J31 S))1,654 3%OFE UR'M¢N]'COST
9 LAND ACQUISITION
s520,000 BACRES $650DD/ACRE
OTAL DIRECT COSTS - -:E2561 d7 d/O SJ/:.;,Sd.12f 161 s0 573 3,01d
10 CONTRACTOR'S OVERHEAD
i9 A6 29 120%OF TOTAL LABOR
11 OWNER'S PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
$2 67]691 R.OF TOTAL DIRECT COST
12 SALES AND USE TAXES
f991158 %OF TOT ALMATERIAL&LABOR
OTALOVERIIEnD77777�
S13,38110
13 ENGINEERING
S7 2 I05 102%OF TOTAL DMCT COST
OTALINDIRECT COSTS 7777 .,
'Sid'1d94J5
OTALCONS'I, UCTLONCOSTS
519939521'.
14 CONTINGENCY
S]189 ]e 15%OF TOTAL CONSTRUCTIONTOTAL CAPITAL COST
COST
:::

CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LIME COLOR REMOVAL SYSTEM
CANTON,NORTH CAROLINA
RUST F&I PROJECT U33858 04-Oct-95
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
ITEM AREA to UNITS PRICE UNITS ANNUAL COST a
1 OPERATING PERSONNEL 8 MANYEARS $39.514 !TUUTAL
THAN YEAR $716110
2 NANCE PERSONNEL 8 MANYEARS $39,514 MAN YEAR 216,110
3 OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR SERVICES
$126.000
4 STORES AND SUPPIJEB 4%OF E PT.COS 4 PERCENT SI I,OSS,DS E NPMENT s44;gas
SELECTRICAL POWER 3,200 HORSEPOWER 533830 PER HP.YEAR f103I,200
6 STEAM 1.72E+07 POUNDS1 YEAR t2.10 /MILLION POUNDS $36132
7 g2FUEL OIL 3.16E+06 GALLONS/YEAR 10.54 PER GALLON S3787353
8 WATER 1.81E+08 GALLON&YEAR PERMILLIONGAI.L0N S55458
9 CHFJrBCALS
LWE TDN_
- CARBON DIOXIDE S7J39 ,�N S S4400 PERTON $423600
SULFURIC ACID 98% PERTDN $5,178,510
445% TONS/YR SR PERTDN S3,354912
CALCIUM CARBONATE No TONWM Us PERTON $52800
10 SLUDGE TO LANDFILL 29000 CU.YDSTYEAR $12 PER CU.YD. $348000
OTAII.ANNUAL
!OPIIRA?WO�AND,MAINfENANCE.COST oe �I Y. - 1,YI '488,391
10 INI'EREii l0 PERCENT S57420,099 AL CAPITAL cost t3,742,010
11 DEPRECIATION 3 PERCENT $24,578939 TGTALE PT.RMATL. 51,228,94]
TOTAL ANNUAL COST �t!�&.� z�. M; g _:.� I S21459348

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton.North Carolina
3.8 REFERENCES
The following is a list of references used to prepare this section.
1. Sirrine Environmental Consultants, Effluent Color Treatment Reports from April. 1987 -
hampion International Co=ration, April 1987.
2. SEC Donohue, Color Treatment Technology Assessment - Champion International
Coloration,July 1992.
3. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering- Treatment. Disposal and R . is , Second
Edition,McGraw Hill Company, 1979.
4. E. W. Lang and R. F. Miller, Color Increase of Treated Kraft Mill Effluents, TAPPI
Environmental Conference Proceedings, 1977.
5. Champion International Corporation, 1995 Color Removal TechnologyRep=,April 1995.
Q:\ConceptV3858\Repor1 3-18

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
4.0 POLYAMINE COLOR REMOVAL SYSTEM
4.1 SUMMARY
This section addresses the polyamine color removal process.
Recent laboratory testing with post CMP secondary effluent from the Canton Mill has demonstrated
that this process is technically incapable of achieving the target color objective of 50 color units at
the end of the mixing zone. During bench scale tests,the polyamine was incapable of reducing the
effluent color below 120 color units. The estimated capital cost for a polyamine treatment system
is $34,685,000 in July, 1995 dollars. The accuracy of this estimate is +30%, -15%. This estimate
includes all direct and indirect costs of the project, as well as land acquisition and permitting. The
total annual cost for this system is estimated to be$13,781,000. The annual costs include operating
and maintenance costs,as well as interest and depreciation.
The system is designed for an influent color load of 133,200 pounds per day. Space necessary to
implement this alternative is not available in the present mill area. Therefore, property owned by
Champion approximately one mile downstream and north of Fibreville would be utilized.
Treated secondary effluent would flow through new piping to the treatment area. New clarification
equipment would be provided to add necessary quantities of polyamine to the effluent and precipitate
the color forming materials as a sludge.
A dewatering system,an incinerator and some ancillary equipment would be provided to incinerate
color forming materials in the process sludge. Tertiary effluent would be pumped through new piping
to the present wastewater treatment area for discharge at the existing outfall.
4.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
In the 1987 and 1992 Color Treatment Technology Assessment reports, the process design for the
polyamine treatment system was based on the assumption that the treatment would be performed in
existing primary clarifiers. However, treatment in a tertiary system would be necessary to insure
process reliability, as discussed in Section 4.4. A tertiary treatment system is therefore proposed in
this report.
Q:\Conceptli3&5Meport 4-1,

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion hiternaponal Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
Liquid polyamine would be added to the secondary effluent in a polymer mix/reaction basin designed
to provide a total retention time of 2 minutes at the design peak flow. A liquid polyamine storage
tank with a two week storage capacity and dual 100%capacity metering pumps would be provided.
}
The polyamine would react with and precipitate color forming materials in the mill effluent in two(2)
tertiary clarifiers. The clarifiers would be concrete structures, 180 feet in diameter with a 15 foot
sidewater depth. The design average surface overflow rate per clarifier would be 500 gpd/ft2 while
the peak overflow rate would be 765 gpd/ft2.
Dual 100%capacity sludge transfer pumps would be provided to pump sludge from the clarifiers to
a sludge blend tank sized for 30 minutes sludge storage. The blend tank would be equipped with a
side-mounted agitator to keep the sludge from settling. Sludge feed pumps would pump sludge from
the sludge blend tank to dewatering equipment.
A dry polymer feed system, including feeder, mixing tank, feed tank, and progressive cavity feed
pumps would be included to feed a dewatering aid polymer to the sludge blend tank.
Two new screw presses each rated for 30 tons/day of dry solids would be provided. The presses
would be equipped with rotary screen thickeners to increase the sludge consistency to 4-5% solids
prior to the screw presses. Filtrate from the rotary screen thickeners and screw presses would flow
by gravity to the polymer mix/reaction basin.
Sludge discharged from the screw presses at 45% solids (assumed)would be.conveyed to a sludge
incinerator. No. 2 fuel oil would be used as fuel to enhance burning of the sludge. Ash from the
incinerator would be hauled to a landfill.
Y Materials of construction for incinerator parts that would come into contact with the sludge would
be of type 316 stainless steel.
Combustion gases from the sludge incinerator would pass through a venturi scrubber where
" I particulate matter would be removed by scrubbing with mill water. The scrubber water would be
piped to the polymer mix/reaction basin. The combustion gases would be discharged through a stack.
All materials of construction that would come in contact with the flue gas would be type 316 stainless
steel.
QAConcepA 338.5Meport 4-2

]995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton.North Carolina
�1 A storage tank for No. 2 fuel oil would be provided together with a heater and a pump to transfer the
Y oil to the incinerator.
!� 4.3 DESIGN BASIS
!�P Following are design bases for the conceptual design and cost estimate for the polyamine color
removal system. Design conditions were based on data supplied by Champion and on limited
6 laboratory testing. Equipment sizing was based primarily on experience with similar processes and
i
engineering judgement.
4.3.1 Secondary Effluent Characteristics
Average Flow - 25.7 MGD
Peak Flow - 39 MGD
�r
Average Color - 70,900 lb/day
Maximum Color - 133,200 lb/day
(� Average TSS - 2,900 lb/day
Maximum TSS - 8,100 lb/day
4.3.2 Laboratory Testing
;+ Laboratory tests with samples of post CMP secondary effluent from the Canton mill were the basis
�jfor determining polyamine requirements,costs,and sludge quantities.
l4�
4.3.3 Chemical Storage
`f Two weeks storage for liquid polyamine.
l� 4.3.4 Sludge Dewatering
�! Sludge storage for 30 minutes
QAConcep1l33&5Mepor1 4-3

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton North Carolina
clarifiers was also considered. However this approach was believed to be inappropriate for
the following reasons:
• Bench scale testing performed by Champion at another mill indicated that color
reversion could occur through the secondary treatment system following polyamine
treatment.
• The Canton mill has no equalization facilities. It would be extremely difficult to
I
achieve the target effluent color value on a consistent basis due to the fluctuations in
influent wastewater characteristics.
• The influent wastewater to the primary clarifiers contains relatively high
concentrations (> 500 mg/L) of suspended solids and dissolved materials that may
exert a demand for polyamine. If the polyamine were added at the primary clarifiers,
I the effectiveness of the process would be reduced since the polyamine would not
selectively treat and eliminate the color forming materials in the wastewater. A
significantly higher polyamine dose would probably be necessary in the primary
clarifiers to achieve the same degree of color removal as a tertiary system.
6. Operation of the incinerator would result in emissions to the atmosphere of particulates,
hydrocarbons, SO,and NO.. It was assumed an air permit could be obtained to operate the
incinerator.
,r 7. A permit could be obtained for polyamine sludge disposal when the incinerator were out of
service. It is anticipated that the incinerator would be out of service approximately 20 days
per year for maintenance activities.
4.5 BASIS OF ESTIMATED COST
i
The process design for this color removal system was based on bench scale testing. Since there are
no known full scale installations of this technology in an application similar to the Canton mill, pilot
testing would be necessary to establish the viability of the process and to develop firm design
parameters.
Q:1Concept\4385Meport 4-5

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton.North Carolina
The estimated costs for this system were based on the bench scale testing results. Should pilot testing
indicate major changes to the system, the cost estimates would increase proportionate to the
necessary changes.
The estimated design and construction time required for this project is 24 to 30 months. This does
not include any time associated with permitting related activities. The installation of this tertiary
treatment system may require a PSD perk. PSD permitting in close proximity to at least two Class
I areas (Great Smokey Mountain National Park and Shining Rock Wilderness Area) would require
extensive analysis, permit reviews and a public heating. PSD permit analysis and review would likely
take more than 24 months. This would be in addition to the 24 to 30 months anticipated for design
and construction of the system.
Since the start date for the project is unknown at this time, costs are presented in July, 1995 dollars
without any escalation.
The cost for land necessary for the installation of pipelines between the mill and the Fibreville site are
included. It is assumed that this land could be purchased from the individual home owners and the
City of Canton.
f
Other relevant cost basis assumptions were summarized earlier in Section 1.4.
I -
I
Q:\ConceptU3858\Report 4-6

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
4.6 DRAWINGS
Included in this section are the following drawings related to the polyamine color reduction system:
• Figure 4.1 -Flow Diagram
• Figure 4.2 - General Arrangement
Q:\ConcepAl33858JZeport 47

' 1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton North Carolina
DRAWINGS
f
l
Q:\Concept\4385Meport 4_8

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
4.7 COST DATA
Cost estimates for the polyamine color removal system are attached. Included are summary tables
for the total capital cost and annual operating costs.
Q:\Concept33&5Mepon 411

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
1
COST DATA SUMMARY TABLES
' I
Q.\Concept\33&5Meport 4-12

I �
_ e
CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION POLYAMINE COLOR REMOVAL SYSTEM
CANTON,NORTH CAROLINA
RUST E&I PROJECT 033958 20-Sep-95
CAPITAL COST SUMMARY
AfATERWI, LABOR ::.;>:.,<:M.:<:..�c:.,x.:2":a.>?s.>::kg,noc<Ae.,.e::>::.: o.,.:e<n:., s:aoy.•rs;x:a::.<,.<.:o...:..:<.,>:::::.>:<:,:<.: ..:::::.„�..:..:.:�.,:.::..:.:.
ITEM DESCRIPTION p UNIT PRICE q I UNIT PRICE EQUIP- M1IATERI- LABOR SUBCON- TOTAL REMARKS
p MENT ALS TRACT
1 PROCESS EQUIPMENT Sd,590,191 S41,763 S294,161 $0 S4926,117
2 CIVIIISTRUCTURAL SO S 01946] 1993669 SO 33033136
3 AC S205,0 $119100 $110 15 SO $434815
4 IPING $2007 $2018931 13235078 SO $7.Z7 13
6 ELECTRICAL 5280,000 f922,000 S400500 SO f1,602,SOD
6 STRUMENTATION $1,296,179 $0 $249,045 SD 51,545,2D
7 SULATION SO S232,400 SO $O $232,400
8 PAINTING $110,165 $27.541 $137,7063%OFE UNMENTCOST
9 AC UISITION $520,000 8 ACRES $65,000/ACRE
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS e:eS%375,676 S5,483,528 5T510,009 5o 519;iiy;il0
10 CONTRACTOR'S OVERHEAD
$6 72 70 120%OF TOTAL LABOR
11 OWNER'S PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
fl 575195 8%OF TOTAL DIRECT COST
12 SALES AND USE TAXES f554 80 4%OF TOTAL MATERIAL&LABOR
TOTAL OVERHEAD
58501935.
13 ENGINEERING SI 6H 8110%OF TOTAL DIRECT COST
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS:-" —7 -7777310,470;016
OTAI;:CONSTRUCTION.COSTS .00 725
14 CONTINGENCY
S4 241D915%OF TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST ..
._ :" 534684835 K ..

CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION POLYAMINE COLOR REMOVAL SYSTEM
CANTON,NORTH CAROLINA
RUST E&I PROJECT#33858 ANNUAL OPERATING COST 04-Oct-95
ITEM AREA # UNITS PRICE UNITS ANNUAL COST
1 OPERATING PERSONNEL 9 MANYEARS $39,514 MAN YEAR $316.110
2 MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL a MANYEARS $39.514 /MANYEAR a316,110
3 OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR SERVICES
$126.000
4 STORES AND SUPPLIES 4%OF E UIPMENT COST 4 PERCENT a8,375,676 TOTAL EQUIPMENT E335,027
5 ELECTRICAL POWER I,100 HP $328.50 PER HP.YR $361,350
6 STEAM 2.54E+06 POUNDS/YEAR E2.10 /AMLION POUNDS $5,334
7 #2 FUEL OIL 5.08E+05 GALLONS/YEAR a0.54 PER GALLON 5274,320
8 WATER 5.08E+07 GALLONS/YEAR E306 AME,LION GALLONS $15,555
9 CHEMICALS
-LIQUID POLYAMINE 3,500 TONS/YR S2,200 PERTON a7,700,000
-DRY POLYMER 44 TONS/YR $3200 PER TON $140800
10 HAULING ASH TO LANDFILL 2400 cu.YD. $12.00 PER CU.YD. Egg gpp
dTOTALANNUALOPERATINGANDMAINTENANCECOST ' s9,6L9A06
11 INTEREST 10 PERCET T34,684,B35 TOTAL-CAPITAL COST E3,468,483
12 DEPRECIATION 5 PERCENT 513,859,501 TALEQPT.&MAT'L. E692,975
NMI
TOTAL ANNUAL COST -rx :a<::::.>:y:>•;�>>:;E««rcr.:e;:c«�.:<>::c <..�:».,:
-,.::,.:...:::...... . 3:o:a�.� ' '�:J S13780864

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
4.8 REFERENCES
The following is a list of references used to prepare this section.
1. Sirrine Environmental Consultants, Effluent Color Treatment Reports from April 1987 -
Champion Intemational Corporation,April 1987. i
2. SEC Donohue, Color Treatment Technology Assessment - Champion Intemational
CCporation,July 1992.
3. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Wastewater .ngini e.ring• Treatment Disposal a_ nd Reuse, Second
Edition,McGraw Hill Company, 1979.
4. Henderson, W., Champion International Corporation, West Nyack, NY, Personal
Communication,October, 1995.
5. Champion Intemational Corporation, 1995 Color Removal Technology Rep=,April 1995.
Q:\Concept\3385Meport 4-15

° 1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
5.0 ULTRAFILTRATION SYSTEM
5.1 SUMMARY
This section covers the tertiary color removal process using ultrafiltration (UF).
The estimated cost of this system is$141,167,000 in July 1995 dollars and based on the assumptions
summarized in Sections 5.4 and 5.5. The accuracy of this estimate is +50%, -25%. This estimate
includes direct and indirect costs, as well as land acquisition and permitting. The total annual cost
for this system is estimated to be$30,004,000. The annual costs include operating and maintenance
costs,as well as interest and depreciation.The accuracy of the cost estimates presented in this section
are+50% - 25%.
There are no known full scale installations of OF technology for tertiary treatment of pulp and paper
mill wastewater. Therefore,this technology is not recommended for installation at the Canton mill.
The preliminary process design presented in this section is based on the assumption that the target
color objective of 50 color units at the end of the mixing zone can be achieved with this technology.
Theoretically,this target value is possibly achievable by providing multiple OF modules in series. The
costs associated with this approach would be prohibitively high.
The tertiary system is designed for a peak color load of 133,200 pounds per day. Space necessary to
implement this alternative is not available in the present mill area. Therefore, property owned by
Champion approximately one mile downstream and north of Fibreville would be utilized. Treated
secondary effluent would flow through new piping to the new treatment area. The wastewater would
pass through sand filters for suspended solids removal before being pumped to the OF system.
Permeate from the OF system would be sent to a cooling tower to lower the temperature within
discharge limits and then be pumped back to the existing outfall for discharge. Reject from the OF
system would be concentrated further in a multiple-effect evaporator and then incinerated. The
incinerator would include an afterburner, waste heat boiler, and ionizing wet scrubber. Backwash
from the sand filters, condensate from the evaporators, and blowdown from the incinerator would
be pumped back to the primary clarifier of the existing wastewater treatment plant.
QAConcept03&5Meporr 5-1

` 1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
5.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Effluent from the existing wastewater treatment plant would flow by gravity to the site of the color
removal facilities through a new 72-inch diameter buried pipeline. This site is approximately one mile
downstream from the mill on the Pigeon River,and immediately north of Fibreville.
The design average wastewater flow would be 25.7 MGD, and the design peak flow would be 39
MGD. The wastewater would contain average and peak loadings of 2,900 and 8,100 pounds per day,
respectively,of suspended solids.
Wastewater would be collected and pumped to sand filters for removal of suspended solids. Three
pumps,each rated at 14,000 gpm would be provided.
The sand filters would be of the gravity type with automatic backwash. The design peak filtration
rate would be 4 gpm per square foot of surface area. Eighteen filter cells would be provided at 400
square feet each for a total filtration area of 7,200 sq. ft. This would allow one cell to be out of
service for backwash at all times. The filter; would be in a concrete, above-grade structure, and
arranged in two rows of 9 cells. The overall dimensions would be 200 feet long by 50 feet wide. The
filtered water would drain into a 900,000 gallon below-grade clearwell constructed directly beneath
the filter structure.The cleamell would provide approximately 30 minutes of hydraulic retention time
at the design peak flow rate. Three backwash pumps,.each rated at 4,800 gpm would also be
provided. Backwash would be pumped back to the primary clarifiers of the existing wastewater
treatment plant.
Three pumps, each rated at 14,000 gpm, would pump filtered water from the clearwell to the OF
units. Thirty OF modules, each rated at 900 gpm, would be provided in a 62,500 ft' ventilated
building. Each module would contain 11 OF membrane sepralators. Fifty (50) modules were
proposed earlier(1987)for treatment of a 52 MGD flow. Due to the reduction in flow and color of
the secondary effluent,it was assumed that fewer modules would be adequate for this application.
Five percent solutions of detergent,caustic and citric acid would be provided inside the building for
cleaning the membranes. The cleaning cycle would last one hour. Each module would probably be
I cleaned once per week. An external 50,000 gallon steam-jacketed tank will provide 160°F rinse
water. Cleaning solutions and rinse water would be supplied to the membranes at 100 psig.
Q:\ConceptV38.58\Report 5-2

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton North Carolina
Permeate from the OF system would be at 1150F which is above the allowable discharge limit. A two
cell 27,000 gpm cooling tower with two 150 HP fans would lower the permeate temperature by
approximately 25OF. The cooled permeate would be collected in a below-grade basin beneath the
tower and pumped to the existing outfall for discharge. Three pumps, each rated at 14,000 gpm,
would be provided for this purpose.
Reject from the OF system would be collected in a storage tank. The reject would be pumped to a
six-stage falling film evaporator. The evaporator would reduce the reject volume ten fold and
increase the solids consistency proportionally. Vapor from the last stage would be condensed by
approximately 2,300 gpm of cooled permeate taken from the cooling tower basin. Condensate from
the evaporator would be collected and pumped to the primary clarifiers of the existing wastewater
treatment plant. Necessary reductions in pressure throughout the evaporator stages would be
accomplished with a 250 HP vacuum pump.
The concentrated product from the evaporator would be pumped to a stainless steel heat exchanger
and brought to 220°F to prevent polymerization. Heat would be provided by 35,psig steam.
From the heat exchanger,the concentrated waste would be sent to an incinerator. A double-door ram
feeder would force the waste into a refractory-lined rotary kiln. An afterburner, operating at
1,800°F to destroy residual organics,would follow the kiln. Supplemental heat would be supplied
with No. 2 fuel oil. A waste heat boiler would be used after the afterburner to recover excess heat
and cool the exhaust gases.
A prescrubber would follow the waste heat boiler to further cool the exhaust gases. Blowdown from
the prescrubber would be sent to the primary clarifier; of the existing wastewater treatment facility.
A wet electrostatic precipitator would reduce particulate emissions below 0.08 grains per SCF. Total
halogen removal would be 99% while SOX removal was assumed to be 95%. An induced draft fan
will send the treated exhaust gases through a stack for final release..
5.3 DESIGN BASIS
The following is a summary of the design basis used to develop the conceptual design and cost
estimate for the OF color removal system. Design flow and loading conditions were based on
historical data provided by Champion. No full scale performance data were available for the
Q:\CanceptU38.58\Reporr 5-3

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
technology since there are no known commercial installations for tertiary treatment of pulp and paper
mill effluent. Equipment sizing was based primarily on experience with similar equipment and
processes, and on engineering judgement.
5.3.1 Secondary Effluent Characteristics
Average Flow - 25.7 MGD
Peak Flow - 39 MGD
Average Color - 70,900 lb/day
Maximum Color - 133,200lb/day
Average TSS - 2,900lb/day
Maximum TSS - 8,1001b/day
5.3.2 Sand FiltPrc
A design filtration rate of 4 gpm/ftz would be used at peak flows. The corresponding backwash
rate would be 12 gpm/fO. At a design influent TSS of 20 mg/L, the design effluent TSS was
assumed to be 5 mg/1 or less.
5.3.3 Cl arwell
The overall size would match outside wall dimensions of filter gallery (200' x 50'). Provides 30
minutes of flow equalization prior to the OF units.
5.3.4 Illtrafiltration System
The design maximum flux rate would be 150 gallons per day per square foot. Thirty modules,
each module with 10,000 square feet of membrane surface area would be used. The actual flux
rate at design peak flows would be approximately 130 gpd/ff ..
Y
Q:kConcept0385Meport .5-4

r 1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
5.3.5 Ultraffitration Cleaning System
Modules would be cleaned once per week. The cleaning cycle would last one hour; 10 minutes
detergent,20 minutes hot rinse, 10 minutes caustic, 20 minutes hot rinse. Citric acid would only be
used in the event of severe fouling.
5.3.6 Rinse Tanks
Sized for three hour storage of rinse water/solutions.
5.3.7 OF Concentrate StorageeTank
Sized for one day retention time. Total volume -400,000 gallons.
5.3.8 EvapQrator
Designed for influent flow of 290 gpm at 5%solids. Effluent flow would be 30 gpm at 50% solids.
System would require 2,300 gpm of cooling water with a 30°F temperature drop.
5.3.9 Heat Exchanger
The exchanger would maintain evaporator concentrate at 220°F to avoid polymerization. Designed
for 30 gpm influent flow.
5.3.10 Incinerator
Supplemental heating will be supplied by No. 2 Fuel Oil. The afterburner would be designed for
2,200°F. The two-stage electrostatic precipitator would provide particulate emissions less than 0.08
grains per SCE.
5.3.11 Cooling Tower
Designed to lower the temperature of OF permeate and condenser water from 115 OF to 90°F.
Q:\ConcepA3385Meport 5-5

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
5.3.12 Tertiary Effluent Pump Stations
Used 3 pumps at 50%capacity for peak flow. Pumping rates to existing outfall - 14,000 gpm each.
5.4 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions were made in developing the process design for the ulttafiltration color
removal system:
1. It was assumed that OF technology could achieve the target color objective of 50 color units
at the end of the mixing zone. However,no tests have been performed to date with post
CMP secondary effluent. Furthermore, there are no known full scale installations of this
technology for an application similar to the Canton mill.
2. An average sand filtration rate of 4 gpm/ft' would reduce TSS to less than 5 mg/l.
3. Land required for installation of sub-surface piping between the existing secondary and new
tertiary treatment systems could be purchased from individual home owners.
4. Relocation of water,natural gas,and sewer services presently buried beneath the roadway to
the site would not be required.
5. Due to the nature of the material to be incinerated, operational or maintenance problems
could require dual 100%capacity incinerators. This redundancy was not included and would
affect the accuracy of the estimate.
6. Operation of the incinerator would result in emissions to the atmosphere of particulates,
hydrocarbons, SO2,and NO, The assumption was made that an air permit could be obtained
to operate the incinerator.
7. Site work and excavation costs did not account for the presence of rock or hardpan in the
area. If these materials were encountered, the estimated costs would increase. Subsurface
exploration and testing has not been done at the site. Rock excavation costs for installation
of the pipelines between the existing wastewater treatment system and the proposed tertiary
treatment site could be as high as $1,500,000.
QAConceptU3&5Meport 5-6

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
5.5 BASIS OF ESTIMATED COST
There are no known commercial installations of OF technology for tertiary treatment of pulp and
paper mill wastewater. The process design for this color removal system was therefore based on the
assumption that the target color objective of 50 color units could be achieved with 30 modules.
The estimated design and construction time for this project is 24 to 30 months. This does not include
any allowance for permitting related activities. The installation of this tertiary treatment system may
require a PSD permit. PSD permitting in close proximity to at least two Class I areas (Great Smokey
Mountain National and Shining Rock Wilderness Area) would require extensive analysis, permit
reviews and a public hearing. PSD permit analysis and review would likely take more than 24
months. This would be in addition to the 24 to 30 months anticipated for design and construction
of the system.
Since the start date for the project is unknown at this time, costs are presented as'July, 1995 prices
without any escalation.
The cost for land necessary for the installation of pipelines between the mill and the Fibreville site are
included It was assumed that this land could be purchased from the individual home owners and the
City of Canton.
Other relevant cost basis assumptions were summarized earlier in Section 1.4.
QAConcept\33&5Meport 5-7

` 1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
5.6 DRAWINGS
Included in this section are the following drawings related to the OF system:
Figure 5.1 -Flow Diagram
Figure 5.2 -General Arrangement
QAConcept\33&5Meport 5-8

` 1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
DRAWINGS
Q:\Concept\3385Mepor1 5-9

` 1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton.North Carolina
5.7 COST DATA
Cost estimates for the OF system are attached. Included are summary tables for the total capital cost
and annual operating costs.
QAConcepM3858\Report 5-12

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton North Carolina
COST DATA SUMMARY TABLES
Q:\ConceptV3&5Meport 5-13

CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION ULTRAFTLTRATION SYSTEM
CANION,NORTH CAROLINA
RUST E&I PROJECT#33858 CAPITAL COST SUAMIA lY 2I-Sep-95
77:,.::1,:n::: :::;;:«2>a;;:-:<::es:::zsii:yx..,..:>y:::2:':;x:;:.H,<:::gws' AIATERL\L LABOR
... . TERI13OR33a8::7<:?sysb#nn AI DESCIiffiION q UM7 PRICE q UNIT PRICE E U�_
q Q AfATERl- LABOR SUBCON- TOTAL RE111.U2KS
1 PROCESS E UIPbIENT MENT ALS
S50805804 "S518 70 24,W4767 SO $53 28941
2 CIVIL/STRUCIURAL $0 S7038 76 S2,413,917 60 $9453492
3 HVAC U85m S313M $413422 So SI 13422
4 PIING
S 003 4 S6 66 99 SS 53420 0 $14 23723
5 ELECTRICAL
5368000 S fxo 700 SI 22 00 SO 54411000
6 INSTRUMENTATION S 653158 S240000 SIx3289 $0 S3616447
7 INSULATION So $tu 40o so So SDx4o9
B PALMING $1 19 39 004 s s1 z4 v43%OFE 1JTPtv1EM COST
9 LAND AC MSMON
S520M 8ACRES A$65 ODOMrRE
TO DIItEGTCOSTS ::;: '. .;si. _
10 CONTRACTOR'S OVERHEAD
S17,325,539120•/OF TOTALLABOR
11 OWENER'S PROJECT ADMIMSTRATION
T7249 68 8%OF TOTAL DIRECT COST
12 SALES AND USE TAXES
- s3 ou 666 4%OF TOTAL MATERIAL&LABOR
,.< TOTALOVERHEAD
S27 S9SID
13 ENGINEERING
14 31 5%OF TOTAL DIRECT COST
TOTALINDIRECT COSTS Slf u94p1
`TOTAL'CONSTRUC17UNICOSTS
14 CONTINGENCY
$I8413100 15%OF TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
.i:.v'i�YrYSCnfi1�Fi

CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION ULTRAFTLTRATION SYSTEM
CANTON,NORTH CAROLINA
RUST E&I PROJECT N33858 ANNUAL OPERATING COST 21-Sep-95
ITEM ' AREA q UN[TS PRICE UNITS N ANNUAL COST
1 OPERATING PERSONNEL a M.WYEARS /39514 muN YEAR S316110
2 MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL 8 MANYEARS 539514 mfAN YEAR E316110
3 OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR SERVICES
513fi 000
4 STORES AND SUPPLIES 4 PERCENT E56 13866 3LlTALE VIPFfENT S 60631
5 ELECTRICAL POWER 5.30 HORSEPOWER S328.50 PER HP.YR SI141050
6 STEAM 1.16E 8 POUNDW YEAR 52.10 WPOUNDS $1363735
T q2 FUEL OE. 1.53E+06 GALLONS/YEAR S8.64 /GALLON
5663)11
8 WATER 1.13E+08 OALIANY YEgR S3M MILLION GALLON S33100
9 CHEMICALS
Gamut
7.74EM3 TONS/YR $325 PER TON S2,516,360
10 ULTRAFII.TRATION A�MBRANE REPLACEMENT 169,565 E DARE FEEfIYEAR E1600 rs UARE Poor
E2 5d]dl8
11 HAULING ASH TO LANDFILL E 122 nl.YD HIM PER N.rD S23 d65
i
12 RJ'TEREST
10 PERCENT SI4I161103 TOTAL CAPRAL COST SI4116110
13 DEPRECIATION
5 PERCENT S7559650 ALE PT.&MATE. S]ll8 J0
TOTAI FNIIALCOST

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton North Carolina
5.8 REFERENCES
The following is a list of references use to prepare this section.
1. Sirrine Environmental Consultants, Effluent Color Treatment Reports from April 1987 -
Champion Intemational Comnration, April 1987.
2. SEC Donohue, Color Treatment Technology Assessment - Champion International
Corporation,July 1992.
3. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Wasted Engineering7 Treatment Disposal and Reuse, Second
Edition,McGraw Hill Company, 1979.
4. Champion International Corporation, 1995 Color Removal Technology Re=, April 1995.
QAConeept\3385Meport 5-16

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
6.0 CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM
6.1 SUMMARY
This section addresses the carbon adsorption color removal process.
The estimated capital cost for this system is $102,529,000 in July, 1995 dollars and based on the
assumptions summarized in Sections 6.4 and 6.5. This estimate includes direct and indirect costs, as
well as land acquisition and permitting. The total annual cost for this system is estimated to be
$23,890,000. The annual costs include operating and maintenance costs, as well as interest and
depreciation. The accuracy of the cost estimates is only+50% - 25%.
There are no known full scale installations of carbon adsorption technology for tertiary treatment of
pulp and paper mill wastewater. The preliminary process design presented in this section is based on
the assumption that the target color value of 50 color units at the end of the mixing zone can be
achieved with this technology. Theoretically, this target may be achieved by providing multiple
carbon adsorption units in series at a very high cost.
The system is designed for a peak influent color loading of 133,200 pounds per day. Space for the
proposed treatment system is not available in the present mill area. Therefore, property owned by
Champion approximately one mile downstream and north of Fibreville would be utilized. Treated
secondary effluent would flow through new piping to the treatment area. Facilities would be
provided at this area for removing color in conventional upflow contactors filled with granular
activated carbon. Decolorized wastewater from the contact columns would be neutralized and
pumped back to the existing outfall at the mill area through new piping.
Facilities would also be provided for on-site regeneration and reactivation of the carbon. The
regenerant solution, which would contain the removed color bodies, would be concentrated by
evaporation and destroyed in an incinerator.
Q:\Conceptl438Weport 6-1

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
6.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Secondary effluent from the existing wastewater treatment plant would flow by gravity to the site of
the color removal facilities through a new 72-inch diameter buried pipeline. This site is approximately
one mile downstream from the mill on the Pigeon River,and immediately north of Fibreville.
The design average wastewater flow would be 25.7 MGD, and the peak flow would be 39 MGD.
This flow would contain an average of 70,900 pounds per day of color and 2,900 pounds per day of
suspended solids. The design peak color and solids loading would be 133,200 lb/d and 8,100 lb/d,
respectively.
Wastewater would flow into a pH adjustment basin sized to provide two minutes retention at the
design peak flow. The basin would be a below grade concrete structure 30 feet x 24 feet x 12 feet
deep with mechanical agitators and baffles. Sulfuric acid would be metered from a 16,000 gallon
storage tank into the pH adjustment basin to adjust the wastewater pH to approximately 6.0 s.u. A
pH monitor and controller would maintain the pH of the wastewater at approximately 6.0. Following
pH adjustment, the wastewater would be pumped to sand filters for removal of suspended solids.
Three pumps, each rated at 14,000 gpm would be provided.
The sand filters would be of the gravity type with automatic backwash. The filtration rate would be
4 gpm per square foot of surface area at the design peak flow.The total filter area requirement would
be 6,800 square feet. Eighteen cells at 400 square feet each would,be provided. This would allow
one cell to be out of service for backwash at all times. Filters would be in a concrete, above-grade
structure, and arranged in two rows of 9 cells. The overall dimensions would be 200 feet long and
50 feet wide. Filtered water would drain into a clearwell constructed directly beneath the filter
structure. Three backwash pumps rated at 4,800 gpm would be provided.
Three pumps,each rated at 14,000 gpm, would pump filtered water from the clearwell to the carbon
adsorption columns. Four carbon steel columns would be provided. Each column would have a
volume of 30,000 cubic feet and would be 32 feet in diameter and 38 feet high. Each column would
be designed to provide approximately 15'to 20 minutes of empty bed contact time (EBCT) at the
design peak flow. Granular activated carbon would be provided in each column.
The columns would be operated in two parallel trains of two columns each. Flow would be equally
divided between each parallel train. The columns in each train would be operated in series. When
Q:\Concepfti3&58\Report 6_2

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton North Carolina
breakthrough is about to occur in the first column,the flow would be switched to enter the second
column in series,while the first column would be temporarily taken out of service and recharged with
fresh carbon. Decolorized effluent from the adsorbers would flow into a final pH adjustment basin.
The final pH adjustment basin would be identical to the influent pH adjustment basin. Sodium
hydroxide would be added to raise the pH to approximately 7.0. Three tertiary effluent pumps,each
rated at 14,000 gpm,would pump the wastewater back to the mill area through new 54-inch diameter
piping. Wastewater would be discharged at the existing outfall.
Economics of the system operation would favor on-site regeneration and reactivation of the carbon.
These facilities would be included in the system design. Normally,a majority of the color could be
washed from the carbon by a caustic wash solution. A 125,000 gallon storage tank for 50%caustic
would be used to store a ten-day supply of caustic. The caustic would be transferred to a solution
make-up tank where it would be diluted and stored until needed. The regenerant solution would then
be pumped through the idle carbon column followed by a wash water flush. The dilute regenerant
solution,containing the color bodies, would be pumped to an evaporator. The evaporator would be
sized for a maximum inlet flow of 400 gpm. Evaporator bottoms would contain the color at a
maximum flow of 50 gpm. The evaporator would utilize combustion gases from the incinerator for
heat. Evaporator bottoms would be pumped to a rotary incinerator. The incinerator would be fired
with No. 2 fuel oil Combustion gases would pass through a secondary combustion chamber to insure
complete destruction of organics. Flue gases would be directed through a scrubber before discharge
to the atmosphere. Ash from the incinerator would be hauled to a landfill.
After several cycles,the carbon would be thermally reactivated. Carbon from the idle column would `
be pumped in slurry form to the spent carbon storage tank. This tank would have sufficient volume
to hold the entire carbon load from one column. Spent carbon from the tank would be pumped in
slurry form to a dewatering screw conveyor which would feed the thermal regeneration unit. Natural
gas would be used to raise the temperature of the carbon for oxidation of adsorbed organics. The
reactivated carbon would be discharged into a quench tank where it would be re-slurried and pumped
to a carbon storage tank for reuse. Pumps would be provided to recharge the adsorption columns.
QAConceptl3385Meport 6-3

" 1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
6.3 DESIGN BASIS
The following is a summary of the design basis for the conceptual design and cost estimate for the
carbon adsorption color removal system Design influent conditions were based on data provided by
Champion. No full scale performance data were available since this technology has not been
commercially demonstrated for treatment of pulp and paper mill secondary effluent. Furthermore,
no testing has been performed with post CMP secondary effluent from the Canton mill. It is
therefore not known if the designed system would achieve the target color objective of 50 color units
at the end of the mixing zone. Equipment sizing was based primarily on experience with similar
equipment and processes, and on engineering judgement.
6.3.1 Secondary Effluent CLacteristics
Average Flow - 25.7 MOD
Peak Flow - 39 MOD
Average Color - 70,900 lb/day
Maximum Color - 133,200 lb/day
Average TSS - 2,900 lb/day
Maximum TSS - 8,1001b/day
6.3.2 Secon aiy Effluent Pump Station
Pumping would not be required- secondary effluent would flow by gravity from the mill treatment
area to the location site of the new color treatment facilities. A 72"diameter pipeline would be used.
6.3.3 pH Adjustment Tank
Sized for 2 minutes hydraulic retention time at the design peak flow. Mechanical mixers and baffles
— would be provided.
Q:\ConceptU385Meport 6-4

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
6.3.4 Sulfuric Acid Storage Tank
Sized for one week storage at 16.5 tons per day usage. Volume - 16,000 gallons.
6.3.5 Sand Filter;
Set filtration rate at 4 gallons per minute per square foot. Backwash rate would be 10-20 gallons per
minute per square foot. Influent TSS =20 mg/l,effluent TSS = 5 mg/l or less.
6.3.6 Clearwell
Provided 30 minutes storage at design peak flow.
6.3.7 Carbon Columns
Sized for 18 minutes EBCT per column at the design peak flow. Used upflow contactors.
6.3.8 Final pH Adi stm�nk
Sized for 2 minutes hydraulic retention time at the design peak flow. Mechanical mixers and baffles
would be provided as required.
6.3.9 Terti=Effluent Pump Station
• Use 3 pumps @ 50%capacity for peak flow
• Pumping rate- 14,000 gpm each
• 54"diameter pipeline to existing outfall
6.3.10 Caustic Storage Tank
Sized for ten days storage
Q:\Concept0385Meport 6-5

m 1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton North Carolina
6.3.11 Regenerant Make-Up Tank
5,900 gallons of caustic (50%)are required per column for regeneration. A 4% solution would be
used for regeneration.
6.3.12 EvapQrator
Sized for influent flow of 400 gpm. Effluent flow would be 50 gpm @ 9% solids. Heat would be
supplied by incinerator combustion gases through a direct contact venturi preheater.
6.3.13 Incinerator
Rotary type with primary and secondary combustion chambers. Fired with No. 2 fuel oil.
6.3.14 SWnt Carbon Storage Tank
Sized to hold entire carbon load from one column. Volume— 30,000 cubic feet.
6.3.15 Ibermal Reactivation Unit
Sized to process carbon from one column every 48 hours although the average reactivation
requirement would be one column load per week. The unit would be fired with natural gas. Steam
would be released to the atmosphere.
6.4 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions were made in developing the process design for the carbon adsorption
color removal system:
1. Sand filtration rate of 4 gpm/ft2 will reduce TSS to less than 5 mg/l.
2. It was assumed that the treatment system, as proposed, would meet the desired color
objective of 50 color units at the end of the mixing zone. No tests have been performed witt
secondary effluent from the Canton mill since the CMP.
Q:\Concept\33&5Meport 6-6

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
3. Pilot studies have not confirmed the suitability of the evaporation/incineration process or the
thermal reactivation process.
4. Site work and excavation costs were based on the assumption that rock or hardpan would not
be encountered in the area. If these materials were encountered, the estimated cost would
increase. Subsurface exploration and testing has not been done at the site. Rock excavation
costs for installation of pipelines between the existing wastewater treatment system and the
proposed tertiary treatment site could be as high as $1,500,000.
6. Land required for piping could be purchased from individual home owners.
7. Relocation of water,natural gas,and sewer services presently buried beneath the roadway to
the site would not be required.
8. Operation of the incinerator would result in emissions to the atmosphere of particulates,
hydrocarbons,SO2,and NO, The assumption was made that an air permit could be obtained
to operate the incinerator.
6.5 BASIS OF ESTIMATED COST
There are no known commercial installations of this technology for treatment of secondary effluent
at a pulp and paper mill. The process design and the costs presented herein were based on the
assumption that the technology is technically capable of achieving the desired color objective of 50
color units at the end of the mixing zone. No tests (bench or pilot scale) have been performed with
secondary effluent representative of operating conditions at the Canton mill since the CMP.
The design and construction time required for this project would be 24 to 30 months. This does not
include any time associated with permitting related activities. The installation of this tertiary
treatment system may require a PSD permit. PSD permitting in close proximity to at least two Class
I areas (Great Smokey Mountain National Park and Shining Rock Wilderness Area) would require
extensive analysis, permit reviews and a public hearing. PSD permit analysis and review would likely
take more than 24 months. This would be in addition to the 24 to 30 months anticipated for design
and construction of the system.
Q:\Concept\33&5Meport 6-7

' 1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton.North Carolina
Since the start date for the project is unknown at this time, costs are presented as July, 1995 prices
without any escalation.
The cost for land necessary for the installation of pipelines between the mill and the Fibreville site are
included. It is assumed that this land could be purchased from the individual home owners and the
City of Canton.
Other relevant cost basis assumptions were summarized earlier in Section 1.4.
Q:1ConcepA33&5Meport 6-8

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
6.6 DRAWINGS
Included in this section are the following drawings related to the carbon adsorption color reduction
system:
Figure 6.1 -Flow Diagram
Figure 6.2 - General Arrangement
Q:\Concept03&5Meport 6-9

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton.North Carolina
DRAWINGS
Q:1ConcepA33R5Meport 6-10

1995 Color Treatment Technologv Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton.North Carolina
6.7 COST DATA
Cost estimates for the carbon adsorption system are attached. Included are summary tables for the
total capital cost and annual operating costs.
Q:\ConceptV3&58\Report 6-13

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
COST DATA SUMMARY TABLES
Q:\Concept\33&58JMeport 6-14

0
CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM
CANTON,NORTH CAROLINA
RUST E&I PROJECT N33858 CAPITAL COST SUMMARY 04-Oct-95
MATERIAL LABOR ::'tar,sw:£<aa«:::'?'srk6Tcr::k<�•ru...:<>3D<.•a¢xy ' r.,. . .,,....�ao,.::c.�.ITEM DESCRIPTION N UNIT PRICE N UNPE PRICE EQUEN MATERI- LABOR SUBCON TOTAL REMARKS
1 PROCESS EQUIPMENT $29 32960 f]725] $308/495 so $) 17/712
2 CIVIL/STRUCTURAL. s0 fIJ21J20 f19]1605 so 56293925
3 HYAC SU6,511 5/88,]60 SJ26,]]I SO 51,102,0J2
4 PIING so JI]10 5/,1/9069 w S134m.m9
5 ELECTRICAL W$520M
0 s6 JM So SS o13000
6 INSTRUbB3MATION S/96,]4] so S;/85,736
7 INSULATION 0 SS60,)17 t0 8 PALMING $194.848 9 (AND AC UISITION s52oo00 8 ACRES $65 000/ACRE
DIRECTCOSTS99 Slfas02o SA 10 CONTRACTORS OVERHEAD
$O 291 120'AOF TOTALLABOR
11 OWNER'S PROJECTADWMSTRATION
S4.995.010 8%OF TOTAL DIRECT COST
12 SALES AND USE TAXES SI 5f ]6 %OF TOTAL MATERIAL&LABOR
TOTALOVEREIEAD -7777-
.'77777,
.520.611,676.:.
13 ENGINEERING
S6231262 102%OF TOTAL DIRECT COST
TOTALINDIRECT COSTS
526 2958
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS 'Se9;u3,S5e
14 CONTINGENCY
AS 7] H 15%OF TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
:-� TOTALCAPITAL COST

CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM
CANTON,NORTH CAROLINA
RUST E&i PROJECT N33858 ANNUAL OPERATING COST 04-Oct9S
ITEM AREA N UNITS PRICE UNITS ANNUALCOST
1 PPERATIiNGPERSONNE1, 10 MANYEARSS]9 11 /MAN YEAR i]93 UB
2 E PERSONNELa MANYEARs S]9s12 /MAN YEAR S]I6Ilo
3 RACTOR SERVICES
S106000
4 STORES AND SUPPLIES 4 PERCEM' S29,332,M E IAPMENT S1101118
5 ELECTRICAL POWER 3800 HORSEPOWER 53U8 0 PERHP.YR S919600
6 STEAM IN'IERMIPSENP SIf 000
7 FTIEL OIL 1.1IE�07 OALLONV YEAR $0.54 /GALLON Sf981051
B WATER 1.02EWO OALLONY YEAR Sim /MILLIONOALLON S1136
9 CHEMICALS
Cauaic _
-Su1Rvi0 Acid SM TONSIYR V2 PERTON 5U961U9 64
10 ASH DISPOSAL 7500 N.YDSIYEA0. S12.00 =YD 590000
11 CARBON REPLACEMENT 366 TON S3/00.00 PERTON M8 )S
' . .. ..'^ .. :. n'^ .yr.S9,'.><:'.4 >.<,',x:'k'�,�:...':2.. e• ^c?3z`..,ar..,`.&?4.a::............:.:..:
12 INTERES7 10 PERCENT SIG] 3B 89R ,>!AL CAPRAL COiI' SIO
13 DEPRECIATION 3 PE0.CEM SIB f9 RS rarALE PL&MATL. S3149 9
TOTAI
"i <4

1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
6.8 REFERENCES
The following is a list of references used to prepare this section.
1. Shrine Environmental Consultants, Effluent Color Treatment Reports from April 1987 -
Chamoion Intemational CoiMration, April 1987.
2. SEC Donohue, Color Treatment Technology Assessment - Champion International
Corporation,July 1992.
3. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Wastewater .nginneeeriring• Treatment Disposal and Reuse, Second
Edition,McGraw Hill Company, 1979.
4. Champion International Corporation, 1995 Color Removal Technology Rep=, April 1995.
QAConceptU385Meport 6-17

° 1995 Color Treatment Technology Assessment
Champion International Corporation
Canton,North Carolina
7.0 STORAGE AND TIMED RELEASE
This system is based on the premise that color laden effluent could be stored as necessary in a holding
basin until such time that the assimilative capacity of the Pigeon River allows metered effluent
discharge. This approach will not reduce the effluent color,but would allow discharges during higher
river flows.
The Pigeon River has an average flow of 206 MGD at the mill site, based on historical data from
1929 through 1995. The river background color averages 13 color units. Water quality standards
define a maximum of 50 color units at the point of discharge. Therefore, the average assimilative
capacity of the river based on the average flow and the background color value is approximately
63,600 pounds of color per day.
The mill effluent contains an average of 70,900 pounds of color per day. This consists of
approximately 2,800 pounds of background color in the intake water from the Pigeon River, and
approximately 68,100 pounds of color that is generated in the mill production process. Since the mill
production process generates more color than the assimilation capacity of the river on an average
basis, storage and timed release of effluent is not a technically valid concept. Therefore, a detailed
cost estimate was not prepared for this approach.
Calculations relating to the storage and timed release concept are attached. The calculations are
based on effluent data collected since the CMP.
Q:\ConceptU38.5Meporr 7-1

O
STORAGE AND TIlVIED RELEASE CALCULATIONS
BASIS, 206 MGD
PIGEONRivPR
RIVER DATA
AVG.FLOW UPSTREAM OF MILL,MGD 206 13 PPM
AVG.COLOR UPSTREAM OF MILL,PPM 13 22 313 PPM
AVG.COLOR UPSTREAM OF MILL,PPD 22,335
CHAMPION MQ.i
MILL DATA
AVERAGE WASTEWATER FLOW,MGD 2 25.74 MOD
AVG.WASTEWATER COLOR,PPD 70,900 900 330 PPM68 109 H/DAY
COLOR GENERATED IN MILL PROCESS,PPD 68,109
STORAGE POND
14
CALCULATIONS: 1.65 MG/DAY
COLOR TARGET AT END OF MDCING ZONE,PPM SO 4,542#/DAY
COLOR TARGET AT END OF MDCING ZONE,PPD 85,902
RIVER COLOR ASSIMILATION CAPACITY,PPD 63,567
STORAGE POND , END OF MDCIN O
DAILY AVERAGE COLOR STORAGE REQUIREMENT,PPD 4,542
DAILY STORAGE VOLUME REQUIREMENT,MILLION GALLONS 1.65 204 MGD
50 PPM
85,902 N/DAY

WATER
ORT PQl[a
Ax CA 5tC
16RR a W CA a?AMEHL
{ DUCT=TRACER
r OATS WAOT1 -
U TRR% EQ
R � acLErtRr I
_ _ I
j I
HETF FO qY5 1
OJ 9 x�0 N W� 1
Ea
e 1 S1tl1A0[24'"
aELEI[ N ALUM� >pp/PCllTpt a [LLECIM 7RAED
x100 rrID snTFY Aa an MA TY I
R 3 N O
ALUM
x M
WIT
WE >
l
uW W®r [Asi>e ouiiru�
I
I "
e I > EW WASTE
PH BANN
Iit 6RCwlCr1 I rx AnICRdT bAum 400 HP EACH
A'a IRa ROEEP I 108 WY z W.IRTMM
OOO
z•TD Ivu I Ax•uwu
I
• I
RE=0I OARFMwmxvm n
Mo
•R
nm:,rp� e
0Me q(eTGL wrs
OO 000 CPW
DOR
RW!Y•L.H AMP r
�.
ETTA$AL
A N�RO, TER RY EE[ADO
yr MUM I •Y SRDS e I R ,ww ,
\ Oft
).f E/Y.x
1
SR>YOC IN I R e ��ACr Aa r i
� I
SCREEN RT
UFMAT , MT TA
a'Tu w I
/ I so¢W PW M EAA04 W ar n
To BEQ[0 MEN REACTOR
sanAx Ao L
AosCPMR[AOA1 P9 Y /n mn
-• srAa 'YR"r.c Wass
agar
nEYAIOI
DREGS
W7A Samoa[ - q•PADTE
W INA x Sx VON x rA,CW 1LTRATE H1P! FOR 24 w
rrx IAW x[o10 HP LAM IGC.OV)
QPw,N M r SEALW TOR �Q
400 T„D INCTI•AI T M
SCR YPMAi
sm[W CONr[Tm
>0OO41NR[
Ydt FluttEED
SCREW COIYETW
Tm
PL>P• IaaIR
n WATER
FICA
1 I {IfAaTm
IrErel AIR
BATCH w
xr•M a xr C La
•x sTORAL I" =E .
n`«l FAR
To sR¢W COMY[TaR
LLL
AW IaO 1RNCQCR y J ®4C�ORM• "Mel"
A•TR6/OAY w oration
YO'lER C'pBaRAir ENpCERNO
CACE W
. 4 T FNUrI50M 2
CwV1M YlL
FIGURE 2.1
MwENVIRONMENT & END-OF-PIPE
COLOR TREATMENT
INFRASTRUCTURE ALUM COLOR REMOVAL SYSTEM
FLOW DIAGRAM
33858-F-002-X

I
rr
II
r /
II ,
II
II
FFpp1YX1L
❑BASIN
II
! 1 I I ST
REACTOR WIER I O TANKS�
I I 2DW I
II I
r 1 1 I DISSOLYEII M .
� ATIO
SLUMN
7MM1ER
I SLIIDCE
NORTH
rLIADIND ASHO RATOORR
SLO STORAGE
I I 0.�TOORR r \y/_�J� �FO7FLNR01
— - - too NO-1I - — - - — T RGCTOR
rr
0 POLYMER FEED SYSTEM
.40 ❑ STORAGE ISTING SYSTTEEM
q pHXtIM
OLTS.M
BASH
CONTROL/ / E ' N It
IIEARLDING
r r BARK STORAGE AREA NORTH OF FIBREVILLE \ \ ® CA
Champion International Corporation
I I \ \ COMM�IC[Mrl(LFlM
NNOIT3BROEF LL1K
CMiIM rll
\\ FIGURE 2.2
`\ ENVIRONMENT & END-OF-PIPE COLOR
TREATMENT
MWINFRAMUMU
ALUM COLOR REMOVAL SYSTEM
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
33858-GA-002-X
. .,rvv.vvmrca

0a LlY
m•,M.
!b Rcuu,A
11FO T L.E
FORM
OLLIIV[I[r
3]in Sl=
W tow aglwR0
RLVATW
e J0o V 22 M
YOY.W N
alT $QIIY I Mace L2
A �M IM ME
7RIfA1 AO M
Y[Nl[a
Plul Wa wm 1T10.1 5N�W
KAT SW�II
YK OM pASd
RAYNp[i
at Al T
ILLpiATG TiY51Al21
Y9L� ILEBFP COIIIE 01i
} LOa WAL2IT Ml T�
srm ]2'.lOIt3,MT �[L IW 77 M T �OBRT itLOttMAl10
OZ LK'llAa TP11 2 AT ML WA A M 200 WI�ATAT TLPG IQI
M OL
SOiNMO
A QY
K[AUBR laAtsru N
r — — — —— — — — aW ALL AT Wm
m PG FmOLPumP
ID '2ul.
sT5'I1Ls co;g, ATL L o 7 u
io WL
LA[MUM
lilt f2 T"
I L %WRT 4.0'V=PAAI�T
I bDOW1 AT TN•TOI
]0 M G
IT
w
I
TiAw[I✓S V�
I
I W Ltv T � sTSILTI, aPw.s.•La
eI a� aERf m W1cm 11iU�1 WT I
. eoK rAAL 1taaLT.[ae ALA
R I Tw�
eY vial Let
YW TO W fCll B ST ® TZ m i6TL
2 X 24 PW OEEPt1 a 1RMON T
2Oi 2.'A QO[[p N.pW!A AT AOFA
mL=ry W FLLNtfiTUIQI 6Ntitf6 lW M G
tA'dA2 A•SOLWA CLAY AE WAfa1Y FLW
. Ma KTL a wm 2 A•pAL LUPIN
♦Wt KRTIIOr
A3=O 1 lOLit
- Om 1W IOaA mw Im•.pL 50.D5
2 VA ILT
SOa WACOT L
VOM.2.•LMQ i DCt M AK ROW
2 9 v COWTL2O OOO PESM Mt ROW
A M wTOa
al�YiR2MTm 2A4t
23Q,.2 6 iSW�W R15 CWIE\OR
= l
A lOOO GM AT'JP LL 1.1
SIDCE TRMRG RAH W 22 M G
Apo CPYpTG G 1Ya 6a OH CW Nt[(WT HP
A
R2DD O
AT Y 50.05 AIOT2 AT>s 6plffi
1D =Li t
11
'. ipfl I M STOILLOE
IPQA a N•Y
2 a� CAll t:AaW m
REWAT IR TAK
PRA i PNP
ILO=CM W C I ® C A
YAG2Y RIFA a wTW
Irm RAig Ib m M L Champion International Corporation
2500 fAl A�'11111 CORPQRATE MG EMG
D M G
C.TON�TO MLL 15020
' C41iW YLL
`J7 " Qr FIGURE 3.1
EN Y 1RONME*L\ 1 IJC. CO END-OF-PIPE
LOR TREATMENT
INFRASTRUCTURE LIME COLOR REMOVAL SYSTEM
FLOW DIAGRAM
33858-F-001-%
' ».tm.vlmoL[a1

rr
rr
� r
rr
rr
pH AGAWMENT
SASH
71y
iAlx�O I
' I COLORCLARF CARROlIA
180EOIA INOL� WEpl TID
ti
1 1 STACK
O 000 i CARBONATION , L O .
BASIN �Dw
\\ SYS11M NORTH
COLOR I CAI✓t IER N ,
CLARIFIERWD , II Cl/IWI PIOrI
\\ 180'W I t90 pA �
_ _ _ _ _ _ _I_ _ _ _
i i
11 z
G o'
r / EXISTING OXYGEN
CONTROL STORAGE SYSTEM
I I ROOM tKT.s.l
S
El 1-1
HIERS O
r 0 o o it
r r 1Y� REACTION uE O
BASIN
STORAGE 1
a/ \ \ Champion International Corporation
r BARK STORAGE AREA NORTH OF FIBREVILLE sN �`
\\ \ \ Ng4TaKaNa 15DN I�
FIGURE
\ \ ENVIRONMENT & END-OF-PIPE T3COLOR
TREATMENT
TT�TLn A FRT TCT 777 M LIME COLOR REMOVAL
11VPi�1171 IJIJ 1 lJi\P� SYSTEM
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
33858-GA-001-X
M\>LSlVry6\py

I
� Lan wLnR
ME as'IL
RER 1T00/Q FEM PUMPS
W M G wm.wm
I
F J STATC
la WATIR
WLUD XF Lp 7 WD
_ I a Y 1 LW 1[ZI 0.
�
TIX
QILtER
- !D W�4'S10 WA4TT�E 10M9pi PI�Pl
rRKE W GN,ODO CV•W Idl '
90 VII ���1 aW w G
I
Y00%WII•,,[D RWS 101
'aw[A
Too
a saw
r
mD im e
a saw
^ DpC
aw [r nSl�Dlu�l¢.Wl tc
u — — — — —
u - - - - - � I
WQ nw
D MTED FM w
000 D'il a w
2M IM W
}ROTMIT w SOLOS
141m fp1 SO TID
�� YDr SDIw F/IC11
OR
V $DEW 30 rD J A4L MM51M
w
rsa Lu
1
LLMIETDO
is Twf59Ep�OF -
TO
#l11DT
sTI LLI
O wm lM rM! FUEL a.
L
TM LO BY 6p'ROX 8X
O[W®STSI[1[�(Yr� a A IG ol
Ia 0 LErDI eD w UL SET 100
O-TO S ® Champion International Corporation
IM Em TD 1COW14161[[ fb9mnTE ENGFtFINIC
INQLL
NKNfSBNDLE Mw
NIItTCV4aXa 4e420
Cu ON UULL I.
FIGURE 4.1
7E�N�VpI/RONMT/E"�N�T & END-OF-PIPE
11V1 RA 11 UC UU 1 COLOR TREATMENT
POLYAAUNE COLOR REMOVAL SYSTEM
FLOW DIAGRAM
33858-F-004-%
" •uav�xsmauv

! I
11 '
I1
II -
' 11
II
II
II ' ;
II ,
Il I
II
II
II �
TERTWTY
CLARFER
I I 180 FT=DIA I
I I I
SLUM
\\ I RIILDDIO NORTH
SUWGE
r \ MCNERATOR
\ \ I
TERTIARY OFIE�
NO.
I I ISO T,�I
D 55 tOT�Sp
DRY
/ / I POLYMER FEED SYSTEM
O ,
I I EX6TNC OXYGEN
STORAGE SYSTEM
/ I ' STPOiYA1MlE M.T.S.)
/ / ❑ POLYMER MW ORAGE TMet
REAGTM BASN
COMTROL
BWDNG
I BARK STORAGE AREA NORTH OF FIBREVILLE
Champion Champion l_••_nteTii-Ql corporation
\ ` COR .TE EN EMW
\\ FIGURE 4.2
END—OF—PIPE ENVIRONMENT
& TREATMENT r
n R � L'T17T TI�T�T m Lr POLYAMINE SCOLORYSTEM
REMOVAL
1rlVtE1�LL711�lJl.Aj l,/j�J;, SYSTEM ,
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
33858—GA-004—%
- wrrwe�xsemux

>•_
S Pso WATER STORAGE ]m Wall ro FHIIRr
w�M rAiD
su.WATER aI1oW�
No GPr
lipla
rJKTD D w u
TW' r WATER Tort
WT GTER 1O00o CAL
CAl TTAN OAVS CIi'N ff U
TURN
ON. CT=RWO vacs 11200,1111,
.10 w EA
DETERMINE FM )W.s w u�
G4CR
WATER
CE7ER4411T r®1 om
Rrc3
¢rzTt®11 �rox WATER allGlr•7RAIO1 W
WOTANK 10.
w Q ACED S sO ICWILS•D0001'7� IF ro1mRRA
IEIR GTE.W 6W1A "than
I X W w1�]s0'TOX
CYO W W OIL rA PEZAi[
]66
SECOMWY TR.EYTIWIPT
PLAM UTL'Em
-i M7 m Im
I191=LET
SRO rLTER SRO FILTERS;
rrm wrPs W D a •�W rr a RETURN,�LRcs w -
MOOp U.SPl0x 7m0 R TO R- ArW�O n w
WGT mlacv .
meoo 1s11
BMW
AT Q
mo w
aTWraTWAiDM
Olt:�Opy w w,OW�•m G rQt EY WATER T T
T f=r�w ilia rox
Tm tv
s
WATER
0R�5TD [iem'�D rn��TGII To mm"IttiE
SNG ERR D�fcwYG UM
F$511N W �' MIN
fA Kal
]wG
CAOSTIC
7W11 o�IL R111YAY FLAX TIR�GOPWP ED
STORAGE TANK m FaP/ V=rlm.Ou QMR117ATE pRpg U1 CLA1l[IRN M.000 CPM•W
}0�t �lER fNm0 04 =W G%1•DO'1W 2M0 6Y CMW WATER c SJO w G
rV S 1p 1!'Ow a m•x R w G OL�sO' r
[YaP01UTw e
MERATW FAILPMi RM
EYAIDGTOR
w NO 05
wSTiIW T[
OT, t
[
AFTERWTom
10 1 IF RATE�E G5
MFRr WARY REM CPY mDmm = Tx
PESCR. m MOPErTERM!IN WAT DtOW1491
r RArTrm+ =s cPM.Wr sacs
wADt Ia70 N •WINO 174oW 6NIM OpTTM AlPJ
mm•mC7011
COMY[TON =w IAD1
6.A PO
4i�111 mmw
mry pp ® CRRmpion International Corporation a
TE N w fA I MM W GRA k 5mavGEp01�irvmE W
xR TftC 45020
ENIfIX1 wt.
ME NEN.Orm
rzl
WwG
FIGURE 5.1
ENVIRONMENT & END-OF-PIPE
COLOR TREATMENT
INFRASTRUCTURE ATFLOWRDIAG SYSTEM
FLOW DIAGRAM
33858-F-005-X
NULY.x......

rr
JJ
II
II I
II
II
II •
II
II ER
HOT WATER
STORAGE
TAW
I I LTB LLDING
I I t2Wx25o•'
I I COoUNIO
I1 I TOWER
o Goo
\\ Comm RETNN
\ \ WATER PIMP
PLIP STATION
\\ STATION
\\ GONG N07H
STORAGE
RAGE
STATION
TION OPERATIONS STORAGE
\\ STATION L CONTROL iNK
\ \ 000 BITLGErO❑
1 1 BACKWASH
RW
STATION EVAPORATOR
II
J / G _so• roo• tso
J J SAO NEAT
FILTERS EXCHANGER
INCINERATOR
/ J ❑ CONi INCINERATOR
J J MR EXISTING OXYGEN
COEiRE550R O
STORIGE SYSTEM
J J 000 N AGECNJ.S)
PLUP
STATION C967W !
J I STORAGE �tL .a STORAGE
rr
I I BOILER
J r PRESCRUBBER $
J J SCRUBBER
JJ O STICK Champion Inlernationol Corporation
II
\ \ COR ATE EHGEEEPMC
XHENr58POCE DNK
cA aN\ lay\ BARK STORAGE AREA NORTH OF FIBREVILLE
\ \ FIGURE 5.2
ENVIRONMENT & END-OF-PIPE G°`GR
TREATMENT
ULTRAFILTRATION
R—ASTR CTM SYSTEM
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
33858-GA-005-X
. - - miwe�xxrouw

k.2
t'ACDE TAMtuCx mHYI mlYx Ctk lMi.1
2ZGPIA2 PIi ]6
"w u 10 TWO .IOPITPI am W.FT.MIAX 1D
]00 W FA TO A IK ]a Ift - L K
r10YRT FRDII RMIip AM RETEMa fMY YA{[•W TJETYWI
DAREIX CID�1 TMR S w "DAM OARROI TMR
Q r HC LIC —, 1QR 1 PH AW TIEM
W]IRlyl I Soi]OR R'UEID
SFID FLIERS To SaDiR TO SRM ]"24 XTEMa 1[MYM
1 CELLS.=p0 fTF 4 CADOR TAR C/IDCH TAR 1Y�
1200 R 10/K Vw
1O TR 1W 1Tlr iw W[111Ar u
.D01
15m WL LIC —I ITTPdI
SAD
PH FILTER
SAM Sox N•x w M'o0o°�L 155-V FD/L
].HIA.M700 300o WO)"
M CLEAREIL
]1r.w.a
COL
O TYDnAsx tRivs w P1+��
M CL.RTLSSOR IR00 CiY.TJI(M Kam
WRGOM M� .
m W m M G
RA R fR011 EARBOH 30.M J0 O.
L�OIig V�oU
a. RC LR pH KIEl NTM FIM TAR
x x>0
Xa NCH
10 SPCM SIIX.16 GAL
(iV✓BRI TIM DyO00 GAL
�} 2T W.]OM
]S]]T]CRIrii TMM
x]'W A iVN 11
CASTE:1GI HLPS D)
AO V rA
UWEA
OC1111pMi
IEEOER
I{C�1A IO/CfO 0111
11
LOB�p a loMo'TTOM D 101YM.CNR. CA6250 R R.IL
]-0 � Sim WILL WATER
Ll
MT1A°R EFFLFM TEATS uftL `yll
RiP SIAia RM STATa
MLI�AI[R RECEI[1GWT
STORa�Q iNR
CAWOM RE SILWIf f�PLARil
IL
A a,?ItfiGFMD'000 OFL 0 SWARM CR 11000DOo I a EA i0H .
YIIS W CM1W m 7AM M Tpl S1ACx AIRat'FAH r
3].a10�oo TVr 1P [VMCIIAIOR
33]] E0rEP/Jp11QT °
twx wiatT
To STEW
w OATO
uvw uT
1102
EVIPOI Fm M R Tit
L
IRIIM ROERATOR ID.2 xD.O OL GO
Dal PRPS D) 1KO115 OP11� ]0��11 Ok
II[DW� WLCN/LITT °o riY.DO'TYl
x Wave uR DS fOx 4-
® Champion International Corporation
TEATS EFFL" Ei C ORME EXVCEIMG
RiP STATa D Co,"MT Kw Sl) K all
HNILTCM.pD 45020 {
CH1TM YLL }
� i lli
FIGURE 6.1
ENVIRONMENT & END-OF-PIPE COLOR TREATMENT
CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM
INFRASTRUCTURE FLOW DIAGRAM
33858-F-OD3-%
x1IY1nvYHowY

II
11
11
/ I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II '
\ lY ,1 4t^tpl NORTH
FE O
IRIS p.F yK/,tWd�
I I
0 5®m
E+� Q
EXISTING OXYCEN
/ / �ERldd6
STORAGE SFSTEY
I / ltiTS.7
II
BARK STORAGE AREA NORTH OF FIBREVILLE �� CA
® Champion International Corporation
�Tr rwacnmm
I I H�T:�
\ \ \ \ urrm iu
\\ FIGURE 6.2
\\ ENVIRONMENT & END-OF-PIPE COLOR
�y �■� TREATMENT
■�Y�� INFRASTRUCTURE CAR6ON ADSORPTION
SYSTEM
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
33B58-GA-003-%
' ».rav�mxnosow '