NCS000151_Engineering Alternatives Analysis_20190913

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Engineers & Scientists, P.C.
North Carolina Board of Engineers & Surveyors License No. C-4225
3121 Grand Oak Ln.
New Hill, NC 27562
919-605-5642
Engineering Alternatives
Analysis
13 September 2016
Prepared for
Arauco Panels USA, LLC
985 Corinth Road
Moncure, INC 27559
K/J Project No. 1676008.10

Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Arauco Panels USA, LLC
Final Submittal
13 September 2016
%ACq��Q�
p v�y'r f
4 SEAL r• — ��)`��r5[�
042402 ae
Prepared under the supervision of Robert Chrobak
North Carolina Professional Engineer No. 042402, Expires 12/31/2017
KENNEDYMENKS CONSULTANTS
Engineers & Scientists, P.C.
North Carolina Board of Engineers & Surveyors License No. C-4225
3121 Grand Oak Lane
New Hill, NC 27562
503423-4000
JOB NO. '1676008.10

Table of Contents
Listof Tables.............................................................................................................................. m
Listof Figures............................................................................................................................. iii
Listof Appendices...................................................................................................................... iii
Listof Acronyms.........................................................................................................................iv
Introduction.....................................................................................................1
Background..................................................................................................... 1
Summary of Wastewater Generating Operations ................................. 1
MDFProduction........................................................................ 1
Particleboard Mill...................................................................... 1
Existing Wastewater Permits................................................................ 2
Non -Contact Cooling Water Permit ........................................... 2
Non Discharge Spray Irrigation Permit ...................................... 2
Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities ............................................. 4
Proposed Improvements to Wastewater Treatment Plant ................................ 4
Section 1: Determine if Proposed Discharge will be Allowed ......................6
1.1
Federal Standards................................................................................
6
1.1.1 Effluent Limit Guidelines for Surface Water Discharge ..............
7
1.1.1.1 Particleboard...........................................................
7
1.1.1.2 Medium Density Fiberboard ....................................
7
1.1.2 Pretreatment Requirements......................................................
7
1.2
State Water Quality Standards.............................................................
8
1.2.1 Water Body Classification.........................................................
8
1.2.2 Special Designations.................................................................
8
1.2.2.1 Critical Supply Watershed .......................................
8
1.2.2.2 Protection of Waters Downstream of
Receiving Waters ....................................................
9
1.2.2.3 Outstanding Resource Waters .................................
9
1.2.3 Applicable Water Quality Standards ..........................................
9
1.2.3.1 Statewide Water Quality Standards ......................... 9
1.3
Basin -Specific Standards...................................................................
10
1.3.1 Turbidity..................................................................................
10
1.3.2 Fecal Coliform.........................................................................
10
1.3.3 Chlorophyll a in the Cape Fear River .......................................
10
1.4
Wasteload Allocations in the Cape Fear Basin ...................................
10
1.4.1 Discharge through WWWRF Outfall........................................
11
1.4.2 Discharge through Haw River Outfall......................................
11
1.5
Nutrient Offset for Surface Water Discharge ......................................
12
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC i
y:lprojects12016projM76008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos\9.09_reporllengineering allernalives\eaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

Table of Contents (cont'd)
Section 2: Provide Reasonable Projections for Population and Flow ........13
Section 3: Evaluate Technologically Feasible Alternatives .......................14
3.1
Alternative A. Connection to an Existing Wastewater Treatment
System...............................................................................................
14
3.1.1 Pump Station..........................................................................
14
3.1.2 Forcemain...............................................................................
14
3.1.2.1 Velocity Range ......................................................
14
3.1.2.2 Static Head............................................................
15
3.1.2.3 Total Dynamic Head ..............................................
15
3.1.2.4 Alignment..............................................................15
3.1.3 Hauled Wastewater Option .....................................................
15
3.2
Alternative B. Land Application...........................................................
15
3.2.1 Increase Irrigation Area...........................................................
15
3.2.2 Nutrient Limitations.................................................................
16
3.2.3 Crop Sensitivity to TDS...........................................................
16
3.3
Alternative C. Wastewater Reuse ......................................................
17
3.4
Alternative D. Direct Discharge to Surface Water ..............................
18
3.5
Alternative E. Combination of Alternatives ..........................................
18
Section 4: Evaluate Economic Feasibility of Alternatives .........................19
4.1 Alternative A. Connection to an Existing Wastewater Treatment
System............................................................................................... 19
4.1.1 Haul Wastewater to the Big Buffalo WWTP ............................. 20
4.2 Alternative B. Land Application........................................................... 20
4.3 Alternative C. Wastewater Reuse ...................................................... 21
4.4 Alternative D. Direct Discharge to Surface Water ............................... 22
4.5 Alternative E. Combination of Alternatives .......................................... 22
References............................................................................................................................... 23
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC ii
y1projects\2016proj\1676008.10_arauco_npdes\09_reports-memos\9.09_reporl\engineering allernalives\eaa report\eaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

Table of Contents (cont'd)
List of Tables
Table 1: Permit No. NCO040711 Effluent Limits.........................................................................
2
Table 2: Groundwater Standards................................................................................................
3
Table 3: Hydraulic Application Limits for Irrigation Fields............................................................
3
Table 4: Applicable State Water Quality Standards....................................................................
9
Table 5: WWWRF and Arauco Monthly Average Wasteload Allocations ..................................
11
Table 6: Performance Fiber and Arauco Monthly Average Wasteload......................................
12
Table 7: Wastewater Flow Rate Projections by Source............................................................
13
Table 8: Average Effluent Concentrations Pond 3 Effluent.......................................................
13
Table 9: Treated Effluent Characteristics..................................................................................
14
Table 10: Crop Sodium Sensitivity............................................................................................
16
Table 11: Crop Potassium Sensitivity.......................................................................................
17
Table 12: Economic Assumptions for Cost Estimates...............................................................
19
Table 13: Annual Cost Summary for POTW Discharge............................................................
20
Table 14: Cost Summary for Hauled Waste to POTW..............................................................
20
Table 15: Cost Summary for Land Application Discharge.........................................................
21
Table 16: Cost Summary for Wastewater Reuse......................................................................
21
Table 17: Cost Summary for Direct Discharge to Surface Water ..............................................
22
Table 18: Cost Summary for Combination of Alternatives.........................................................
22
List of Figures
1 Vicinity Map
2 Site Plan with Water and Wastewater Schematic
3 Moncure Area Plan
4 Outfall Map
5 Treatment Schematic
6 Forcemain Alignment
7 Combination Wastewater Treatment and Discharge Schematic
List of Appendices
A Wastewater Land Application Evaluation — Shaffer Soil Services, Inc.
B Technical Memorandum: Nutrient Offset Justification
C Cost Estimate Detail
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC iii
y1projects12016projM76008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos\9.09_reporllengineering allernalives\eaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

Table of Contents (cont'd)
List of Acronyms
%
Percent
<
Less than
°C
degrees Centigrade
AMSL
above mean sea level
APCD
Air Pollution Control Device
BAT
best available treatment
Big Buffalo WWTP
Sanford Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant
BOD5
five-day biochemical oxygen demand
BPT
best practicable treatment
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
COD
chemical oxygen demand
County
Chatham County
CY
Cubic yards
DEQ
Department of Environmental Quality
EAA
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
FM
forcemain
fps
Feet per second
ft
feet
g/I
grams per liter
gal
Gallon
gpd
Gallons per day
HDPE
high -density polyethylene
HQW
High Quality Waters
Hr
hour
KW-hr
Kilowatt per hour
Ib/d
Pounds per day
MDF
Medium density fiberboard
MGD
Million gallons per day
MGY
Million gallons per year
NCAC
North Carolina Administrative Code
NESHAP
national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPV
net present value
NTU
nephelometric turbidity unit
O&M
Operations and maintenance
ORW
Outstanding Resource Waters
PB
Particleboard
PCWP
plywood and composite wood products
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC iv
y:lprojects12016projM76008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos\9.09_reporllengineering allernalives\eaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

Table of Contents (cont'd)
POTW
publicly -owned treatment works
SIC
Standard Industrial Code
SU
Standard units
TDH
Total dynamic head
TDS
Total dissolved solids
The Mill
Particle Board Mill and Fiberboard Mill combined
TMDL
Total Maximum Daily Load evaluations
TSS
total suspended solids
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
WESP
wet electrostatic precipitator
WWSP
wastewater pump station
WWWRF
Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC
y:Iprojects12016proj11676008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos19.09_reporAengineering alternativesleaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

Introduction
Background
Arauco Panels USA, LLC operates a particleboard (PB) Mill and medium density fiberboard
(MDF) Mill. The combined mills (referred to herein as "the Mill") are located at 985 Corinth
Road, Moncure, North Carolina. A regional vicinity map is shown in Figure 1. The Mill began
operation in 1975 manufacturing MDF and expanded to particleboard in 1987. In 2012, Arauco
acquired the entire site and currently operates both facilities. A Mill site plan is included as
Figure 2 and a nearby Moncure area map showing the location of the Mill is provided in
Figure 3.
Summary of Wastewater Generating Operations
The Mill generates an average of 56,000 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater; however, peak
wastewater to Pond 5D can be up to 100,000 gpd when heavy rains occur. Both rainfall and
evaporation influence total volume of wastewater, and there is a net gain in the wastewater
ponds due to precipitation.
MDF Production
The MDF production area is located on the north end of the facility. MDF production processes
wood chips with steam and pressure. This process results in a source of wastewater called
"squeeze water". The fibers are combined with resins and binders and pressed to form panels
which are finally dried. Air pollution control devices under the Mill's Title V Operating Permit also
generate blowdown. Primary point sources of wastewater in MDF production include:
• Squeeze Water
• MDF Sumps and oil/water separator
• Keller Scrubber blowdown
• MDF Scrubber blowdown
• Non -contact cooling water
• Steam condensate
All wastewater from MDF flows to a 100,000 gallon "Screened Water Tank", and then to a
dissolved air flotation system, followed by reverse osmosis. This system is ineffective due to the
wastewater characteristics, and is not used.
Particleboard Mill
The PB Mill uses a wood chip drying system prior to processing the chips. Exhaust from the
drying process is directed to a wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP) to reduce air emissions
under the Mill's Title V permit. Soluble and fine materials can remain in the recirculation loop
causing fouling in the WESP nozzles. To manage fouling and clean the WESP fields, the
system periodically doses potassium hydroxide (43 percent [%]) to the WESP.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 1
y1projects12016projM76008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos\9.09_reporllengineering allernalives\eaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

3Morr.isville - -.
CFearring,on
�G® f J ► .fir+ r� r
I'ram' aleigh
1 Nor''. arofina
9h�eltl�t� .T•
Ape x
. Y ' * •� '�' .T v CG a!
i41, • :■
ONew.•Hill r• -•r,
1 f.Q 4 Li
AA V•.
Haliy•5prings
M Mg
�Moncu`re 'fi a►�. �y� 4��
'jFO q u aY4 V,arina
f
i � 5 y ■ A ■ ; _try •• f . .

Irrigation Fields
Keller Scrubber
R.O. Reject MDF Scrubber
MDF Su
Filter mps/
Backwash OWS Wet ESP
Hogged
Fuel Pile
I
1
MDF Mill
/ Particle Board Mill
/ Squeeze
Spray Irrigation Field Water
_ Sand
— _
_ _ I Filter
/ and
--
#1
/ Domestic
WWTP
Irrigation Fields
' r
•FkW
T'01
CORINTH ROADski ft-. f
-
y I �
M
Lq
HAW RIVER
4
LEGEND
Wastewater
Water ----�
Irrigation
Z
0 20 40
1/32"=1'-0"
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Arauco Panels USA, LLC
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
1676008.10
Site Plan with Water and Wastewater Schematic
Figure 2

DEEP RIVER
CAPE FEAR RIVER
",-
101
HAW RIVER
ARAUCO MILL SITE
s
l
4 ti X,
1-
0
N
0 1 2
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES
BUCKHORN DAM
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Arauco Panels USA, LLC
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
1676008.10
Moncure Area Plan
Figure 3

Primary point source discharges from the PB Mill include:
• WESP
• Press Pit
• Non -Contact Cooling Water
Existing Wastewater Permits
The Mill currently holds two permits related to wastewater generated at the Mill.
Non -Contact Cooling Water Permit
Boiler blowdown and steam condensate can be discharged to the Haw River under National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. NCO040711. This permit expired
on 31 July 2016, and a renewal application was submitted to the Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ). Effluent concentration limits in the permit are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Permit No. NCO040711 Effluent Limits
Effluent Characteristic
Monthly Average Limit
Daily Maximum Limit
Total Suspended Solids
30 mg/L
45 mg/L
Temperature
Shall not cause more than 2.8 °C receiving stream increase; shall not
o
cause ambient water temperature to exceed 32 C
Turbidity
Shall not cause receiving stream turbidity to exceed 50 NTU
pH
Shall not be less than 6.0 or more than 9.0 standard units
Notes/Abbreviations:
Reference: North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 15A 213
mg/L = milligrams per liter
NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit
°C = degrees Centigrade
Non Discharge Spray Irrigation Permit
The wastewater treatment and irrigation system operates under a Closed -Loop
Recycle/Conjunctive Reclaimed Water/Wastewater Irrigation System permit (Non -discharge
Permit #WQ0003396) issued by North Carolina DEQ. The permit was issued in April 2013 and
is effective until 30 November 2016. The Mill operates the irrigation system used to irrigate row
crops, which is farmed under a contract to produce silage for non -human consumption.
The Spray Irrigation Permit covers operation of a 126,000 gpd wastewater treatment and
surface irrigation facility. The narrative requirements of the permit related to operations and
maintenance of the treatment system are as follows:
• Freeboard in Ponds 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Sides C and D) shall have a minimum of one (1)
foot at any time.
• Pond 5D is permitted to serve as primary wet -weather storage for process wastewater
with the following operation and maintenance requirements.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 2
y1projects12016projM76008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos\9.09_reporllengineering allernalives\eaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

o Pond 5C is permitted to be used as make-up water to the MDF and PB mills or for
storage of stormwater.
o Wastewater from Pond 5D may be transferred to Pond 5C to maintain required
freeboard level for temporary storage.
o Wastewater transferred to Pond 5C shall be transferred back to Pond 5D once water
levels have been lowered through irrigation.
o Wastewater in Pond 5C shall comply with monitoring requirements in Table 1.
o Wastewater temporarily stored in Pond 5C may be utilized as make up water to MDF
or PB mills if water quality allows.
• The flow limitation of the process wastewater to Pond 5D is 56,000 gpd.
The non -discharge permit does not provide end -of -pipe concentration or waste load limits;
instead, the permit provides groundwater standards that shall not be exceeded. Groundwater
samples are required three times per year to monitor the parameters summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Groundwater Standards
Parameter Daily Maximum
Chloride 250 mg/L
Total Nitrate as Nitrogen 10 mg/L
pH 6.5 - 8.5 SU
Total dissolved solids 500 mg/L
Abbreviations:
mg/L = milligrams per liter
SU. = standard unit
Table 3 provides the hydraulic limits of irrigation on the irrigation fields under the non -discharge
permit.
Table 3: Hydraulic Application Limits for Irrigation Fields
Net Area
Application Rate
Yearly Maximum
Quantity
Field
(acres)
(inches/hour)
Application
(MGY)
(inches/year)
02
3.64
0.60
52
5.14
03
2.27
0.60
52
3.21
04
4.58
0.20
12.74
1.58
05
4.63
0.20
12.74
1.60
06
5.67
0.35
52
8.01
07
5.65
0.60
52
7.98
08
2.83
0.60
52
4.00
09
4.58
0.60
52
6.47
10
5.64
0.60
52
7.96
TOTAL
45.94
Abbreviations:
MGY = million gallons per year
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 3
y:lprojects12016projM76008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos\9.09_reporllengineering allernalives\eaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

The permitted quantity of wastewater allowed for land application exceeds the amount of
wastewater generated on an annual basis. However, the timing of irrigation must carefully be
controlled to avoid irrigating during precipitation, when the ground is frozen, or outside the
growing season. The dependence on weather brings an element out of the Mill's control which
may cause wastewater to accumulate without the opportunity to treat and irrigate. Agronomic
rates determine the limiting quantities allowed on the fields. A preliminary evaluation of
agronomic limitations based on a proposed treatment plant installation is provided in
Appendix A (Shaffer Soil Services letter dated 14 June 2016). The Mill has noted they appear to
be hydraulically limited to an average irrigation rate of 24,000 gpd.
Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Figure 3 presents a schematic of the existing wastewater sources and existing treatment
processes. In preparing this Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) report, we have
considered that the proposed surface water discharge may require separation of waste streams.
This section of the report presents the existing wastewater treatment process.
Blowdown from the PB Mill WESP discharges directly to Pond 5D. Emergency overflow from the
MDF Mill sources is discharges to Pond 5D. Due to greater than typical rainfall in the past year,
the quantity of treated wastewater has been greater than the fields can accommodate. As a
result, the MDF Mill has been applying wastewater to the hog fuel pile where it is burned with
the fuel.
Pond 5D has a residence time of approximately 120 days, and facultative treatment occurs
during this time to remove five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BODO and chemical oxygen
demand (COD). Settling to reduce total suspended solids (TSS) is also accomplished in Pond
5D. From Pond 5D, wastewater is pumped to Pond 4, an unaerated earthen lagoon. Effluent
from Pond 4 flows by gravity to Pond 2, where it is aerated, then to Pond 3, which is not
aerated. Pond 1 is not aerated and is hydraulically connected to Pond 2; however, there is no
circulation between Pond 1 and Pond 2. Treated effluent from Pond 3 is currently pumped to the
irrigation fields for disposal.
Domestic wastewater from office restrooms is collected in a separate pump station and treated
in a small package plant. Treated effluent is conveyed to Pond 3 and is discharged by irrigation
with the industrial wastewater effluent.
Average annual precipitation for the region is approximately 46 inches and contributes
approximately 6 million gallons per year (MGY). This volume is based on 5 acres of area
covered by ponds 5D, 1, 2, 3, and 4. It is assumed that rainfall collected in 5C will not be
treated.
Proposed Improvements to Wastewater Treatment Plant
The wastewater treatment plant improvements will vary somewhat based on the discharge
alternative selected. In general, the following changes are proposed to the existing wastewater
system:
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 4
y1projects12016projM76008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos\9.09_reporllengineering allernalives\eaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

• Separate domestic wastewater treatment plant effluent and discharge to a drainfield on
the Mill site.
• Install primary treatment of squeeze water to remove TSS and reduced BOD5 loading on
the biological treatment plant.
• Install a package biological wastewater treatment plant to treat Pond 3 effluent for reuse,
irrigation, and discharge to surface water.
• Future plans call for decommissioning the earthen basins, Ponds 5D, 4, 3, 2, and 1.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 5
y:Iprojects12016proj11676008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos19.09_reporAengineering alternativesleaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

Section 1: Determine if Proposed Discharge will be Allowed
The purpose of this section is to determine if the proposed discharge will be allowed. This
section considers federal standards, state water quality standards, and basin -specific
considerations. Speculative permit limits, and the associated alternatives for surface water
discharge that would be required to meet these limits, were developed to demonstrate how the
water quality standards could be met.
In consideration of the wastewater sources, limits, and discharge viability, Figure 3 presents a
schematic of the existing wastewater sources and management approach.
1.1 Federal Standards
Arauco's products include Particleboard (PB) and Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF). These
products fall under Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 2493 for reconstituted wood products. SIC
2493 includes establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing reconstituted wood products,
including:
• Board, bagasse
• Flakeboard
• Hardboard
• Insulating siding, board-mitse
• Insulation board, cellular fiber or hard pressed (without
• Lath, fiber
• Medium density fiberboard (MDF)
• Particleboard
• Reconstituted wood panels
• Strandboard, oriented
• Wafer -board
• Wall tile, fiberboard
• Wallboard, wood fiber: cellular fiber or hard pressed-mitse
Manufacturing processes for these products vary significantly, and their wastewater generation
varies in a similar manner. PB production uses a dry process which does not produce
wastewater from conditioning raw materials or forming materials. Wastewater from PB
production results from air pollution control devices. MDF production generates wastewater from
steaming chips and air pollution control devices.
Federal Standards applicable to Arauco's discharge include the following:
Effluent Limit Guidelines under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 429
Pretreatment Standards 40 CFR 403
Federal rule for EPA administered permit programs under 40 CFR 122.2 defines process
wastewater as any water which, during manufacturing or processing, comes into direct contact
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 6
y1projects12016projM76008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos\9.09_reporllengineering allernalives\eaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

with or results from the production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished
product, byproduct, or waste product.
Effluent guidelines and standards under 40 CFR 429.11 (c) the term "process wastewater"
specifically excludes non -contact cooling water, material storage yard runoff (either raw material
or processed wood storage), boiler blowdown, and wastewater from washout of thermal
oxidizers or catalytic oxidizers, wastewater from biofilters, or wastewater from wet electrostatic
precipitators used upstream of thermal oxidizers or catalytic oxidizers installed by facilities
covered by subparts B, C, D or M to comply with the national emissions standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for plywood and composite wood products (PCWP) facilities
(40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD). For the dry process hardboard, veneer, finishing,
particleboard, and sawmills and planing mills subcategories, fire control water is excluded from
the definition.
1.1.1 Effluent Limit Guidelines for Surface Water Discharge
1.1.1.1 Particleboard
The Particleboard Manufacturing Subcategory under 40 CFR 129, Subpart M indicates best
practicable treatment (BPT) technology, Subpart M states (40 CFR 429.141) "there shall be no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants into navigable waters". For best available treatment
(BAT) technology economically available, Subpart M (40 CFR 429.143) states "there shall be no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants into navigable waters." The only source of
wastewater from PB production is blowdown from the WESP, which is specifically excluded
under 40 CFR 429.11 (c).
1.1.1.2 Medium Density Fiberboard
Medium density fiberboard is not listed in the 40 CFR 429 Timber Products Processing
category, and employs different production methods from particleboard. MDF production
requires process wastewater discharge due to large volumes of water required to refine chips
into fiber. No effluent limit guidelines are specific to MDF, therefore, prospective limits for this
industry will be water -quality based.
1.1.2 Pretreatment Requirements
All wastewater sources discharging to a publicly -owned treatment works (POTW) are subject to
40 CFR Part 403, which generally require the source to prevent upset the treatment works and
cause violation of the POTW's permit (including both liquids and solids disposal limitations) as a
result of the discharge. POTWs receiving significant contributions of industrial wastewater are
required to implement an industrial wastewater pretreatment program, including a rules,
inspection programs, limits, and administrative structure. There are no categorical limitations or
exclusions for SIC Code 2493 or Reconstituted Wood Products. In the case of the proposed
wastewater discharge, the likely pre-treatment limitations would be for BOD/COD, TSS, pH,
temperature, and total dissolved solids (TDS).
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 7
y:lprojects12016projM76008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos\9.09_reporllengineering allernalives\eaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

1.2 State Water Quality Standards
1.2.1 Water Body Classification
The Haw River is in the Cape Fear River Basin, and the location of the discharge is in stream
index 16-(42) between the Jordan Lake dam (lower end) and the confluence with the Cape Fear
River. These waters are also protected for Class C uses (secondary recreation). WS-IV waters
are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds or Protected Areas. In this reach,
the Haw is classified as WS-IV. North Carolina water classifications are described below:
Class C: Waters protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish
consumption, aquatic life including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity,
and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving
human body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized,
or incidental manner.
WS-1: Waters protected for all Class C uses plus waters used as sources of water supply for
drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes for those users desiring maximum protection for
their water supplies. WS-1 waters are those within natural and undeveloped watersheds in public
ownership. All WS-1 waters are High Quality Waters (HQW) by supplemental classification.
WS-1 is a "high" quality Class C water that is used for water supply as well as for secondary
recreation and supporting aquatic life.
WS-11: Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing
purposes where a WS-1 classification is not feasible. These waters are also protected for Class
C uses. WS-11 waters are generally in predominantly undeveloped watersheds. All WS-II waters
are HQW by supplemental classification. WS-11 is a considered a "lower" quality water than
WS-1.
WS-III: Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing
purposes where a more protective WS-1 or II classification is not feasible. These waters are also
protected for Class C uses. WS-111 waters are generally in low to moderately developed
watersheds.
HQW: Supplemental classification intended to protect waters which are rated excellent based
on biological and physical/chemical characteristics through Division monitoring or special
studies, primary nursery areas designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission, and other
functional nursery areas designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission.
1.2.2 Special Designations
1.2.2.1 Critical Supply Watershed
Special designations for water bodies are typically put in place to protect a drinking water
source known as a Critical Supply Watershed as specified in 15A NCAC 2B .0248. The Haw
River and Cape Fear River Basin in and downstream of the proposed discharge are not within a
designated Critical Supply Watershed specified in 15A NCAC 2B .0248.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 8
y1projects12016projM76008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos\9.09_reporllengineering allernalives\eaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

1.2.2.2 Protection of Waters Downstream of Receiving Waters
Water quality based effluent limitations or management practices for direct or indirect
discharges of waste or for other sources of water pollution will be developed by the Division
such that the water quality standards and best usage of receiving waters and all downstream
waters will not be impaired. While there are protected waters within the Cape Fear Basin under
15A NCAC 02B .0203, they are in coastal sub basins that would not be directly affected by the
proposed discharge.
1.2.2.3 Outstanding Resource Waters
The reaches of the Haw River and Cape Fear River basin in the vicinity of the discharge are not
subject to a special management strategy specified in 15A NCAC 2B .0225 the Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) rule.
1.2.3 Applicable Water Quality Standards
1.2.3.1 Statewide Water Quality Standards
Statewide Water Quality Standards for Class C Waters applicable to the proposed discharge
are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4: Applicable State Water Quality Standards
Parameter
In -Stream WQ Standard
Reference
Dissolved Oxygen
>_5.0 mg/L
15A NCAC 02B .0211 (6) (freshwater
aquatic life; non -trout)
Temperature
No increase more than 2.8 C above
ambient; No case more than 32 C
15A NCAC 02B .0211 (18) (lower
Piedmont/coastal; non -trout)
pH
6.0 to 9.0 standard units
15A NCAC 02B .0211 (14)
Chloride
230 mg/L
Action level; 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (22) (d)
Turbidity
<_ 50 NTU
15A NCAC 02B .0211 (21)
Nitrate-N
:510 mg/L
Red Book
Nitrate-N
<_10 mg/L
15A NCAC 02B .0216 (3) (h) WS-IV water
quality standard
Abbreviations:
>_ = greater than or equal to
<_ = less than or equal to
North Carolina has no statewide standards for Total Phosphorous or Total Nitrogen. Nutrient
limits are determined on the basis of water body status, and are typically covered in Total
Maximum Daily Load evaluations (TMDLs). The Cape Fear basin is water quality limited for
chlorophyll a, and DEQ is preparing a TMDL update for the Cape Fear Basin to cover
phosphorous that contributes to algae blooms.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 9
y1projects\2016proj\1676008.10_arauco_npdes\09_reports-memos\9.09_reporl\engineering allernalives\eaa report\eaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

1.3 Basin -Specific Standards
The Haw River and Deep River, which contribute to the Cape Fear River, are water quality
limited for turbidity and fecal coliform. The TMDL for the Haw and Deep Rivers was approved by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2005. The Cape Fear River is water quality
limited for chlorophyll a.
1.3.1 Turbidity
The water quality standard states if a water body exceeds the turbidity standard, there shall be
no allowable increase in turbidity; therefore, the turbidity would need to be less than 50 NTU at
the end of pipe.
1.3.2 Fecal Coliform
The domestic wastewater stream will be removed from the industrial treatment plant process,
and we propose to discharge through a drain field. For this reason, there would be no domestic
wastewater sent to NPDES discharge. For this reason, we do not anticipate fecal coliform will
be an issue.
1.3.3 Chlorophyll a in the Cape Fear River
There are no statewide standards for Total Phosphorous or Total Nitrogen; nutrient limits are
determined on the basis of water body status, and are typically covered in TMDLs. The Cape
Fear River above Buckhorn Dam and immediately downstream from the Haw River, is water
quality limited for chlorophyll a. DEQ is preparing a TMDL update for the Cape Fear Basin to
cover nitrogen and phosphorous that contributes to algae blooms. Arauco's wastewater
contains low total phosphorous concentrations and high total nitrogen concentrations. The
nitrogen input may be contributing to the algae blooms and resulting high chlorophyll a
concentrations.
1.4 Wasteload Allocations in the Cape Fear Basin
There are a number of efforts by DEQ currently underway to assess water quality in the Cape
Fear River Basin. There is a modeling effort to address nutrients that will lead to nutrient criteria
and a nutrient management plan. This effort particularly focuses on the middle Cape Fear River.
This effort is expected to be complete in 2020. Because these items are currently in
development, DEQ may reserve determination of wasteload allocations for new permits until
these efforts are complete. As an alternative to new allocations, two nearby discharges were
considered with possible wasteload allocations.
The wastewater discharge proposed to the two receiving water bodies near the Moncure facility
with physically feasible discharge points: the Haw River and the Cape Fear River. The Haw
River is the closer option and would permit Arauco to use an existing pipeline to the river. The
Cape Fear River could be reached by constructing a pipeline directly to the river or by
connecting to the existing Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility (WWWRF) outfall in
cooperation with Chatham County (County). The County owns a volumetric capacity of 6 million
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 10
y1projects12016projM76008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos\9.09_reporllengineering allernalives\eaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

gallons per day (MGD) in this outfall. The county or another discharger participating in the outfall
would need to secure an NPDES Permit and wasteload allocations, as they would be separate
from the WWWRF.
1.4.1 Discharge through WWWRF Outfall
The WWWRF discharges through an outfall pipeline running approximately 10 miles from the
plant to the Cape Fear River just below Buckhorn Dam, as shown on Figure 4.
The WWWRF discharges treated wastewater (19 MGD) into the Cape Fear River in the vicinity
of and downstream of Buckhorn Dam. The WWWRF effluent limits are listed below in Table 6.
Chatham County owns 6 MGD of flow allocation of capacity in this outfall. If Arauco negotiated
similar permit limits, its allocation would be as summarized in Table 5.
Table 5: WWWRF and Arauco Monthly Average Wasteload Allocations
Parameter
Monthly
Average Limit
WWWRF
Wasteload
Allocation
Arauco Possible
Wasteload
Allocation
Flow
--
19 MGD
0.1 MGD
BOD5 (Summer)
5.0 mg/L
792 Ib/d
25 Ib/d
BOD5 (Winter)
10.0 mg/L
1,585 Ib/d
25 Ib/d
TSS
30.0 mg/L
4,754 Ib/d
8 Ib/d
Total Nitrogen
5.0 mg/L
792 Ib/d
8 Ib/d
Abbreviations:
Ib/d = pounds per day
This scenario would require Arauco to enter into an agreement with the County to secure
approximately 0.1 MGD of the County's capacity allotment, equivalent to 1.7% of the County's
total allotment. The discharge would occur under Arauco's NPDES permit and wasteload
allocations.
1.4.2 Discharge through Haw River Outfall
Performance Fiber operates a wastewater treatment plant near the Mill and discharges treated
process and domestic wastewater under an NPDES Permit. Under this permit, Performance
Fiber is permitted to 0.244 MGD into the Haw River with the daily maximum effluent limits for
TSS and BOD5. Table 6 shows Performance Fiber's wasteload limits with Arauco's maximum
limitation added.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 11
y1projects\2016proj\1676008.10_arauco_npdes\09_reports-memos\9.09_reporl\engineering allernalives\eaa report\eaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

101
rwE y_
DEEP RIVER -
MWA
*CAPEEAR RIVER~`
b*
-
HAW RIVER
ARAUCO MILL SITE
4 nNIL
X,1
1•
ti
L (E) OUTFALL
N
0 1 2
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES
WESTERN WAKE
WWTP OUTFALL
BUCKHORN DAM
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Arauco Panels USA, LLC
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
1676008.10
Outfall Location Plan
Figure 4

Table 6: Performance Fiber and Arauco Monthly Average Wasteload
Arauco
Performance
Parameter
Speculative
Fibers Wasteload
Wasteload
Flow
0.244 MGD
0.1 MGD
pH
6-9 SU
6-9 SU
BOD5
10.4lbs/d
15.6lbs/d
TSS
10.6lbs/d
3.9lbs/d
This scenario would require Arauco to acquire Performance Fiber's NPDES Permit and modify
for Arauco's requirement needs. The discharge would occur under Arauco's NPDES permit and
wasteload allocations.
1.5 Nutrient Offset for Surface Water Discharge
There is currently a lack of clear direction in the determination of an appropriate nutrient
allocation for the proposed discharge until the Cape Fear River evaluation and basin
management plan are finalized (projected 2020). To provide an opportunity for water quality
improvement and enable an NPDES permit to be considered for Arauco's proposed treatment
plant, DEQ and EPA suggested Arauco investigate offsetting nutrient inputs from other sources.
A technical memorandum titled "Nutrient Offset Justification" (included as Appendix B) provides
a supporting argument for eliminating irrigating effluent under the current spray irrigation permit,
and allowing discharge of treated effluent under a new NPDES permit to the Haw River.
EPA formalized effluent offsets and trading through a policy statement and associated guidance
documents. The "Water Quality Trading Policy" (2003) (the Policy) document provides context
for the reduction of pollutants under the Clean Water Act and how creative and innovative
approaches will be considered to work toward the overall goal of achieving water quality goals.
In discussion of offsets, Arauco proposes offsetting nutrients from runoff from agricultural fields
by treating wastewater to a higher water quality, thereby, reducing the input of nutrients to the
basin. One of the goals of the policy is to achieve early reductions and progress towards water
quality standards pending development of TMDLs for impaired waters, thus, an effort to reduce
TN input to the basin will achieve this goal.
The justification considers estimated rainfall runoff and results of stormwater sampling from
2011 through 2015. The calculations estimate approximately 16,196 pounds of TN entered the
Cape Fear River basin on an annual basis in the form of runoff from the irrigation fields for the
years listed. The construction of additional treatment for its wastewater will provide a maximum
effluent TN concentration of 10 mg/L, which would reduce annual TN discharge to
approximately 3,044 pounds. The offset ratio of approximately 5.3:1 will provide improved water
quality, meeting objectives of the policy prior to the development of the TMDL and allocations
for TN in the basin.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 12
y:lprojects12016projM76008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos\9.09_reporllengineering allernalives\eaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

Section 2: Provide Reasonable Projections for Population
and Flow
Arauco prepared a wastewater inventory to meet planned board production needs. The
projected wastewater flows are summarized in Table 7.
Table 7: Wastewater Flow Rate Projections by Source
Source
Quantity
(gal/day)
Keller Scrubber APCD Blowdown
5,000
Wet Scrubber APCD Blowdown
15,000
Biofilter Condensate (future)
4,000
Squeeze Water
55,000
Steam Generators Purge
8,000
Sumps & Oil/Water Separator
5,000
WESP Blowdown
4,000
Net Rainfall -Evaporation
4,000
TOTAL WASTEWATER
100,000
Table 8 provides a summary of average Pond 3 effluent concentrations from historical sampling.
For this evaluation, we have assumed these are representative pollutant concentrations in
wastewater that will require treatment before discharge under an NPDES permit.
Table 8: Average Effluent Concentrations Pond 3 Effluent
Parameter
Value
BOD5
354 mg/L
COD (May 2016 sampling)
3,450 mg/L
TSS
151 mg/L
Total Nitrogen
147 mg/L
Chlorides
319 mg/L
TDS
2,758 mg/L
pH
7.89 SU
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 13
y:lprojects12016projM76008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos\9.09_reporllengineering allernalives\eaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

Section 3: Evaluate Technologically Feasible Alternatives
In this section, technologically feasible alternatives are evaluated. For the purpose of the
evaluations, it has been assumed that effluent for Alternatives B, C, D, and E will be treated
according to the treatment schematic shown in Figure 5. The effluent characteristics for
wastewater from the package wastewater treatment plant are summarized in Table 9.
Table 9: Treated Effluent Characteristics
Parameter
Value
pH
6.5 to 8.5
BOD5
<30 mg/L
COD
<100 mg/L
TSS
<10 mg/L
Total Nitrogen
<10 mg/L
TDS
2,758 mg/L
Abbreviations:
< = less than
3.1 Alternative A. Connection to an Existing Wastewater
Treatment System
The Sanford Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant (Big Buffalo WWTP) can receive
wastewater generated by Arauco's facility. This alternative evaluates connecting the Mill to the
Big Buffalo WWTP via a forcemain (FM) and pump station.
3.1.1 Pump Station
A new wastewater pump station (WWPS) and FM with a capacity of 0.1 MGD will be required to
pump treated effluent from Arauco's facility to the Big Buffalo WWTP. The pump station will be a
packaged style system capable of pumping the design peak flow of 70 gpm.
3.1.2 Forcemain
3.1.2.1 Velocity Range
The optimal diameter of the new FM was selected based on velocity considerations. A velocity
range of 2.0 feet per second (fps) minimum and 8.0 fps maximum was determined from the
textbook Hydraulics of Pipelines, Pumps, Valves, Cavitation, Transients.
Sedimentation will occur and settle out at velocities less than 2.0 fps. At velocities greater than
8.0 fps, the FM is at an increased risk for excessive transients and head loss.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 14
y:lprojects12016projM76008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos\9.09_reporllengineering allernalives\eaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

,AF
5C
5D
Keller Scrubber
MDF Scrubber
MDF Sumps/OWS Wet
ESP
MDF Mill
J
(E) IRR.
Squeeze , (P) DISK PUMP
Water FILTER Fire
F
RELOCATED Fire \ Pond
k%SCREW and
4
y PRESS
" (P) PACKAGED — Pond
WWTP
Pond #4
Pon #3
(P) DOMESTIC Pond #2
WASTEWATER #1 -f
DRAINFIELD
IRRIGATION
(ALTS. B & E
(E) DOMESTIC
WWTP
HAW RIVER
DISCHARGE
(ALTS. D & E
1h=
LEGEND
Modified Flow
Existing Flow -
Pump
Packaged Plant .
Z
0 10 20
1 /16"=1'-0"
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Arauco Panels USA, LLC
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
1676008.10
Treatment Schematic
Figure 5

3.1.2.2 Static Head
The total static head is the difference in elevation between the lower water level at the new
Arauco WWPS wet well and the pipe invert elevation at its highest point located midway
between Arauco and the Big Buffalo WWTP. The low water level of the proposed wet well and
pump station will be approximately 160 feet (ft) above mean sea level (AMSL). The invert
elevation at the FM's highest point will be approximately 294 ft AMSL. Therefore, the static head
of the FM will be approximately 134 ft.
3.1.2.3 Total Dynamic Head
The maximum total dynamic head (TDH) of the system depends on both static head and friction
losses. The TDH is dependent on pipe material, the system curve, and pipe sizes. Assuming a
4-inch DR-17 HDPE pipe, the TDH is approximately 270 ft. Pumping of 70 gpm can be
accomplished with a 10 horsepower pump. A duplex pump station is recommended to provide
redundancy.
3.1.2.4 Alignment
The new forcemain will be approximately 9.1 miles in length. From the new Arauco WWPS wet
well, the forcemain will follow Old US Highway 1 for one mile before turning Southwest and
following Claude E. Pope Memorial Highway for the remainder of its length. The forcemain will
discharge at a manhole just south of the intersection of the Claude E. Pope Memorial Highway
and Colon Road. This discharge point feeds the Big Buffalo WWTP through a 12-inch ductile
iron pipe. Figure 6 illustrates the proposed alignment to reach the Sanford gravity collection
system. This alignment assumes the downstream gravity collection system has capacity to
accommodate Arauco's wastewater.
3.1.3 Hauled Wastewater Option
A second option would be to haul wastewater generated by Arauco's facility to the Big Buffalo
WWTP, if approved by the WWTP. Since hauling wastewater is costly wastewater volume could
be reduced through thermal evaporation, membrane filtration, or a combination of the
technologies.
3.2 Alternative B. Land Application
Treated wastewater is currently land -applied as the sole method of effluent disposal. The
effluent is beneficially used to grow row crops. A recent evaluation indicates Arauco is currently
at maximum hydraulic loading of the fields. In addition, the high TDS loading in effluent is
causing high sodium and potassium loading to the fields. Arauco's Agronomist indicates the salt
loading on the fields should be reduced if possible.
3.2.1 Increase Irrigation Area
Arauco's current irrigation fields are at their maximum capacity, using a total of 40 acres grow
row crops. Arauco owns approximately 35 acres of unused land to the north that could be
developed and the irrigation system expanded to provide additional irrigation capacity.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 15
y:lprojects12016projM76008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos\9.09_reporllengineering allernalives\eaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

--Gunter-Harn& Island:
ncli
4 J -.4
it
PROPOSED
F012QF
-016
;,4 611k�
!Sgcoclj
-.r xp-,"
JL
Colon-1--i k1ff
.4.� I.; P. Y.
f
ncli
4 J -.4
it
PROPOSED
F012QF
-016
;,4 611k�
!Sgcoclj
-.r xp-,"
JL
Colon-1--i k1ff
.4.� I.; P. Y.
f
A
iftk
own
cure-
%

Unfortunately, due to the poorly draining soils and shallow groundwater, the estimated capacity
of the 35 acres is 20,000 gpd. With the existing 24,000 gpd applied, this would total
approximately 44,000 gpd. This quantity is less than half of the needed capacity, and is
insufficient to meet the projected needs.
Arauco has investigated acquiring additional property on all sides of the existing facility and has
found no feasible irrigation alternative available in the Moncure area. The one property available
for purchase, Performance Fibers to the north, carries high environmental liability that makes
this property undesirable.
If Arauco could locate and purchase approximately 100 acres of land to irrigate row crops,
irrigate the usable portion of the 35 acres it currently owns, and rehabilitate the current 40 acres
of land irrigated, there may be enough capacity for 100,000 gpd. For the purposes of this
evaluation, a cost estimate for this possibility was prepared and included in Section 4.
3.2.2 Nutrient Limitations
Nutrients are limiting with respect to land application of Arauco's wastewater. For the proposed
wastewater treatment plant, a 75 acre land application site could accommodate approximately
40,000 gpd if wastewater is treated to the effluent quality in Table 9.
3.2.3 Crop Sensitivity to TDS
High TDS in the effluent results in high concentrations of sodium and potassium in irrigation
fields. Poorly draining soils allow evaporation of water from the soil surface leaving salt deposits
at the surface. When salts accumulate in soils, the soil becomes less permeable, and inhibits
plant growth. Conversely, high levels of potassium prevent the uptake of other minerals
beneficial to plant growth. Table 10 summarizes sodium sensitivity of crops considered for
wastewater land application.
Table 10: Crop Sodium Sensitivity
Highly Moderately Sensitive
Tolerant Tolerant (2.5 g/1)
(10 g/1) (5 g/1)
Date palm
Wheat
Red clover
Barley
Tomato
Peas
Sugar beet
Oats
Beans
Cotton
Alfalfa
Sugarcane
Asparagus
Rice
Pear
Spinach
Maize
Apple
Bromegrass (hay)
Flax
Orange
Potatoes
Prune
Carrot
Plum
Onion
Almond
Cucumber
Apricot
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 16
y:lprojects12016projM76008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos\9.09_reporllengineering allernalives\eaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

Highly Moderately Sensitive
Tolerant Tolerant (2.5 g/1)
(10 g/1) (5 g/1)
Pomegranate Peach
Fig
Olive
Grape
Note:
Reference: (United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1954
Abbreviations:
g/I = grams per liter
Table 11 Summarizes potassium sensitivity of crops considered for wastewater land application.
Table 11: Crop Potassium Sensitivity
Highly Tolerant Moderately Sensitive
(10 g/1) Tolerant (2.5 g/1)
(5 g/1)
Alfalfa Corn silage
Corn
Red clover Sorghum silage
Wheat
Bermudagrass
Sunflowers
Bromegrass (hay)
Oats
Fescue, tall
Soybeans
Grain sorghum
Note:
Reference: (United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1954
As shown in Tables 10 and 11, bromegrass is well suited for high levels of sodium and
potassium. In addition, bromegrass has a high capacity for nitrogen uptake. Hay combined with
alfalfa or grown on its own is the recommended option for liquid application of Arauco's high
TDS wastewater. This essentially continues the current operation of the irrigation fields.
3.3 Alternative C. Wastewater Reuse
Based on an assumed limiting TDS concentration of 500 mg/L, we estimate the maximum
amount of treated effluent that could be recycled is about 4,000 gpd or 3 gpm. This represents
approximately 4% of the treated effluent that could be reused. The remainder of the treated
effluent will require discharge through one of the other alternatives.
Treatment alternatives that could produce reuse -quality effluent include reverse osmosis and
vacuum distillation. Both treatment methods are capable of producing effluent with a TDS
concentration less than 500 mg/L. Both treatment methods also produce a concentrated
residual that must be further treated and disposed.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 17
y1projects12016projM76008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos\9.09_reporllengineering allernalives\eaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

3.4 Alternative D. Direct Discharge to Surface Water
Alternative D involves direct discharge of Arauco's wastewater to surface water under an
NPDES Permit. This would require meeting the effluent quality shown in Table 9. Treatment
would include biological treatment and tertiary filtration to obtain the high effluent quality
required.
Surface water discharge would be through one of the outfall alternatives discussed in Section
1.4. The two outfall options include the existing non -contact cooling water and boiler blowdown
outfall from the Arauco facility to the Haw River, and the WWWRF outfall to the Cape Fear
River.
3.5 Alternative E. Combination of Alternatives
The final alternative involves a combination of water reuse, land application, and surface water
discharge. Since all the wastewater needs to be recycled or discharged the wastewater quantity
will be 0.1 MGD.
Arauco has been able to irrigate only 24,000 gpd due to limitations of the poorly draining soils.
Based on a limiting TDS concentration of 500 mg/L, about 4,000 gpd or 3 gpm can be recycled.
Therefore, 72,000 gpd or about 50 gpm remains to discharge to surface water under the
NPDES permit. A schematic of the proposed wastewater treatment, recycle, and discharge
scenario for this alternative is provided in Figure 7.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 18
y:lprojects12016projM76008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos\9.09_reporllengineering allernalives\eaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

RESIDUAL
2
a
N
0
N
M
a
U
U
U
Q
W
a
LU
w
m
O
3
MDF MILL
SQUEEZE WATER
KELLER SCRUBBER BLOWDOWN
WET SCRUBBERS BLOWDOWN
BIOFILTER CONDENSATE
SUMPS & OIL/WATER SEPARATC
COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWNS
- SOFTENER BACKWASH
- SAND FILTER BACKWASI-
STEAM GENERATORS PURGE
PARTICLE BOARD MILL
WET ESP BLOWDOWN
ISUMPS & OIL/WATER SEPARATOI
GENERALCLEANUP
APCP MAINTENANCE
OTHER SOURCES _
WET RAIN/EVAPORATION
ON LAGOONS
DOMESTIC WASTEWATER —
DOMESTIC
WWTP
DRAIN FIELD
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Arauco Panels USA, LLC
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
1676008.10
COMBINATION WASTEWATER TREATMENT
AND DISCHARGE SCHEMATIC
Figure 7

Section 4: Evaluate Economic Feasibility of Alternatives
Economic evaluation of the five alternatives is presented in this section. The assumptions used
in the economic analysis are summarized in Table 12.
Table 12: Economic Assumptions for Cost Estimates
Description
Value
Year of analysis
2016
Inflation Rate
3.5%
Planning Period
20 years
Electricity Cost
$0.06/KW-hr
Labor Cost
$60/hr
Concrete Cost
$1000/CY
Earthwork Cost
$50/CY
Liquid waste hauling (20 miles)
$0.05/gal
Construction Contingency
30%
Abbreviations:
CY = cubic yards
gal = gallon
hr = hour
KW-hr = kilowatt per hour
For all cost estimates in this section, the wastewater was treated and discharged with a
package wastewater treatment plant capable of achieving the effluent quality listed in Table 9. A
detailed breakdown of the cost estimates can be found in Appendix C. Assumptions for each
alternative are provided in this section.
4.1 Alternative A. Connection to an Existing Wastewater
Treatment System
The total construction cost estimate for the connection to an existing POTW wastewater
treatment system is approximately $6.8 million. The cost estimate was prepared with the
following assumptions:
• 10 horsepower pump for 70 gpm at 270 feet of TDH.
• Approximately 48,000 feet of 4-inch high -density polyethylene (HDPE) forcemain to
Sanford's gravity system.
• Air release valve stations (5).
Table 13 summarizes the capital and annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the
connection to POTW.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 19
y1projects12016projM76008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos\9.09_reporllengineering allernalives\eaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

Table 13: Annual Cost Summary for POTW Discharge
Description
Cost
Capital Cost
$6,800,000
Annual O&M Costs
Power
$4,000/yr
Labor
$840/yr
Motor rewinding
$7,000/5-yr
Miscellaneous Maintenance
$2,600/yr
Discharge fees
$30,700/yr
Total Annual O&M Costs
$ 45,100/yr
Therefore, the total 20-year net present value (NPV) for Alternative A is approximately
$7.9 million, or $0.22 per gallon
4.1.1 Haul Wastewater to the Big Buffalo WWTP
The estimated capital cost for hauling all wastewater generated at the Mill to the Big Buffalo
WWTP is approximately $60,000. This covers additional piping and tank for equalization of
wastewater into the WWTP. The larger hauled waste cost is associated with trucking and
disposal. Disposal of this wastewater assumes wastewater equivalent to Pond 3 effluent can be
hauled directly to the WWTP. The associated high strength waste charges are included in the
disposal cost. Hauling costs assume waste is non -hazardous. Table 14 summarizes the capital
and annual costs for hauling wastewater to the POTW.
Table 14: Cost Summary for Hauled Waste to POTW
Description
Cost
Capital Cost
$60,000
Annual O&M Costs
Haul and Dispose at POTW
$1,840,000/yr
Waste Surcharge
$15,000/yr
Tank Maintenance
$400/yr
Total Annual O&M Costs
$ 1,855,400/yr
Therefore, the total 20-year NPV for hauling wastewater to the Big Buffalo WWTP in
Alternative A is approximately $56 million or $1.53 per gallon
4.2 Alternative B. Land Application
The total construction cost estimate for land applying effluent wastewater is approximately $6.2
million. This cost includes purchase of an additional 80 acres for land application, as well as
piping, center pivot irrigation units, and a new irrigation pump. The cost also includes a new
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 20
y:lprojects12016projM76008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos\9.09_reporllengineering allernalives\eaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

package wastewater treatment plant. Table 15 summarizes the capital and annual costs for
increasing the land application capacity.
Table 15: Cost Summary for Land Application Discharge
Description
Cost
Capital Cost
$6,200,000
Annual O&M Costs
WWTP O&M
$42,000/yr
Power
$5,800/yr
Labor
$1000/yr
Total Annual O&M Costs
$ 48,800/yr
The total 20-year NPV for increasing the land application capacity in Alternative B
is approximately $7.6 million or $0.21 per gallon.
4.3 Alternative C. Wastewater Reuse
To reuse all wastewater effluent, the Mill would require treatment of wastewater to reuse quality
and disposal of residual concentrate. For this evaluation, we assumed vacuum distillation was
selected as the treatment approach. The total construction cost estimate for equipment related
to reuse is approximately $7.36 million. In preparation of this estimate, the following
assumptions were made:
The Mill has steam and cooling tower capacity to operate the vacuum distillation system
Residuals are not hazardous waste and can be disposed in a solid waste landfill
Table 16 summarizes the capital and annual costs for treating and reusing wastewater in the
facility.
Table 16: Cost Summary for Wastewater Reuse
Description
Cost
Capital Cost
$7,360,000
Annual O&M Costs
WWTP O&M
$42,000/yr
Power & Steam for Evaporator
$889,000/yr
Maintenance/labor
$1,000/yr
Sludge disposal
$10,000/yr
Total Annual O&M Costs
$942,000/yr
The total 20-year NPV for complete recycle of wastewater in Alternative C is approximately
$36 million or $0.97 per gallon.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 21
y1projects\2016proj\1676008.10_arauco_npdes\09_reports-memos\9.09_reporl\engineering allernalives\eaa report\eaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

4.4 Alternative D. Direct Discharge to Surface Water
The total construction cost estimate for direct discharge is $3.48 million. Table 22 summarizes
the capital and annual O&M costs for the direct discharge alternative under an NPDES permit.
Table 17: Cost Summary for Direct Discharge to Surface Water
Description Cost
Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$3,480,000
WWTP O&M $ 42,000/yr
Power $1,000/yr
Labor $2,000/yr
Total Annual O&M Costs $ 45,000/yr
Therefore, the total 20-year NPV for increasing the land application capacity in Alternative D is
approximately $4.8 million or $0.13 per gallon.
4.5 Alternative E. Combination of Alternatives
The total construction cost estimate for a combination of alternatives is approximately $4.14
million. The alternative includes continued use of existing irrigation fields, recycling a portion of
the effluent to production, and discharge of a portion of the effluent to the existing Arauco-
owned outfall.
Table 18 summarizes the capital and annual O&M costs for the combination of alternatives.
Table 18: Cost Summary for Combination of Alternatives
Description Cost
Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$4,140,000
WWTP O&M $42,000/yr
Power $1,100/yr
Miscellaneous Maintenance $3,000/yr
Total Annual O&M Costs $45,100/yr
Therefore, the total 20-year NPV for the combination of alternatives under Alternative E is
approximately $5.6 million or $0.15 per gallon.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 22
y1projects\2016proj\1676008.10_arauco_npdes\09_reports-memos\9.09_reporl\engineering allernalives\eaa report\eaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

References
Total Maximum Daily Load for Turbidity and Fecal Coliform for Haw River, Deep River, Third
Fork Creek, and Dan River in North Carolina, Final Report, 11 January 2005.
Plant Response and Crop Selection for Saline and Alkali Soils; Agriculture Handbook 60, US
Department of Agriculture, 1954.
NC DENR — Division of Water Qualty `Redbook" Surface Waters and Wetlands Standards, NC
Administrative Code 15A NCAC 028 .0100, .0200, .0300, 1 May 2007.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels USA, LLC Page 23
y:lprojects12016projM76008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos\9.09_reporllengineering allernalives\eaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

Appendix A: Wastewater Land Application Evaluation -
Shaffer Soil Services, Inc.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels, LLC A-1
yAprojects12016proj11676008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos19.09_repotengineering alternativesleaa [e-mail]

SHAFFER SOIL SERVICES, INC.
685 SANFORD ROAD
PITTSBORO, N.C. 27312
919-244-1984
JUNE 14, 2016
Mr. John Bird
Arauco, Inc. Moncure Facility
John: this report is designed to offer wastewater application planning considerations based on the
proposed wastewater effluent quality you provided and based upon the current and proposed
application sites. For the proposed site, both wooded and grassed options are included.
The proposed effluent quality is:
• pH: 6.5-8.5
• BOD: <100 mg/L
• COD: <300 mg/L
• TSS: <10 mg/L
• NH3: <5 mg/L
• Nitrate: <10 mg/L
• TKN: 0 mg/L in warm months; 5-10 mg/L cool months
The calculations will be based upon allowable hydraulic flow as a starting point. This data comes from 2
sources: current application volumes based on Arauco's records for existing fields; and design flow
estimates from the soil study performed in November, 2015. Note that the 2015 design data have the
potential for adjustment (only downward) pending the results of a hydrogeologic study.
Once upper hydraulic design flow limits are set, the constituent parameters listed above will be assessed
to determine if any constituent exceeds an agronomic or environmentally justifiable rate. If so, the
parameter with the most limiting restrictions will dictate the flow rate.
EXISTING
FIELD NO.
ACRES
CURRENT OR PROPOSED
VOLUME (IN/YR)
GALLONS/YEAR
2
3.64
12.74
1,259,135
3
2.27
12.74
785,230
4
4.58
12.74
1,584,297
5
4.63
12.74
1,601,593
6
5.67
12.74
1,961,346
7
5.65
12.74
1,954,428
8
2.83
12.74
978,943
9
4.58
12.74
1,584,297
10
5.64
12.74
1,950,969
NEW
AREAS
A**
7.6
13.28
2,740,397
B**
13.7
24.98
9,292,120
TOTAL
25,692,755
1

*Fields 4 and 5 have a permit limit of 12.74. Fields 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 have a permit limit of 52.
However, Arauco staff has averaged 11-12 inches per year over recent years.
**Does not reflect inherent loss of area due to irrigation design/layout. 10-15% losses expected.
Individual Parameter Calculations
(The highest hydraulic load potential- new field B at 24.98 inches per year, will be the starting basis)
1) pH — NA (see below comments)
2) BOD- recommended maximum 5,000 Ibs BOD/acre/year. At 100 mg/L BOD effluent quality:
maximum BOD load is 564 Ibs/acre/year- well below the recommended 5,000 threshold. BOD
not limiting at 100 mg/L.
3) COD -recommended maximum 2,000 Ibs COD/acre/year. At 300 mg/L COD effluent quality:
maximum COD load is 1693 Ibs/acre/year- below the recommended 2,000 threshold. COD not
limiting at 300 mg/L.
4) TSS- not relevant. (see below comments)
5) Plant Available Nitrogen is calculated at 100% nitrate, 50% ammonia, and 30% of organic N
which is TKN-ammonia. Organic N is figured at 5mg/L for 7 months and 0 for 5 months for a
running average of 3 mg/L. Using the maximum effluent concentrations given, PAN is then 10 +
5 + 3 = 18 mg/L. PAN limits for the crops vary by crop and soil type. For forage crops, corn, and
soybeans an average of 140 Ibs PAN/acre/year is budgeted. At 18 mg/L PAN effluent quality the
maximum N load is 102 pounds N/acre/year so well within the average target N of 140. Note,
individual cropping systems, especially tree crops, will change this rate. Using typical row crops
or hay or forages (grazing), N is not limiting at 18 mg/L. Using trees at an annual N maximum
recommended of 60 pounds N/acre/year, then N becomes limiting as compared to an effluent
rate of 24.98 inches per year. Using the N limit of 60 Ibs N/acre/year, the application is
reduced to 14.7 inches per year.
Comments:
1) pH- soils under present irrigation presently exhibit high soil pH due to Na additions and
subsequent bicarbonate reactions. Options for remedies were discussed in a previous report.
The wastewater effluent pH should not significantly change soil pH. Wastewater Na and K
should be reduced where practicable.
2) BOD & COD- existing fields appear to be stressed by past Na, K, and organic additions. Future
additions to existing fields may continue to reduce permeability, resulting in reduced application
rates.
3) TSS- solids are only relevant as they relate to BOD, COD, or a wastewater parameters of
significance such as N, P, K, Na.
Summary: assumptions include a wastewater quality defined above and application rates per field as
described above. New fields are still subject to a hydrogeologic evaluation to determine ultimate
application potential.
2

Please advise if any questions arise or more information is needed. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Karl Shaffer, L.S.S.
Shaffer Soil Services, Inc.
Attachments: Invoice

Appendix B: Technical Memorandum: Nutrient Offset
Justification
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels, LLC 8-1
y:lprojects12016proj11676008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos19.09_repotengineering alternativesleaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Engineers & Scientists, P.C.
North Carolina Board of Engineers & Surveyors License No. C-4225
13 September 2016
Technical Memorandum
To: Todd Phillips
Site Environmental Manager
From: Dean Wood and Rob Peacock
Reviewed by: Robert Chrobak, North Carolina PE No. 042402
Subject: Nutrient Offset Justification
Arauco Panels USA LLC
Moncure, NC
K/J 1676008*10
Introduction
This technical memorandum provides the technical basis for an offset of nutrient loading to the
Cape Fear River Basin (Shaddox Creek, Haw River, and Cape Fear River) for the purpose of
pursuing a surface water discharge to receiving water impaired for chlorophyll a under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program. The authority to
operate the NPDES permit program was delegated to North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This
memorandum was prepared to support DEQ and EPA in the determination to permit the
proposed discharge.
Wastewater Sources and Current Management Strategy
Arauco Panels USA LLC (Arauco) owns the Moncure Mill (the Mill) located at 985 Corinth Road,
Moncure, North Carolina, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. The Mill produces particleboard and
medium density fiberboard (MDF). Wastewater is generated from the particleboard facility in the
wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP) as part of air emission control. Wastewater from the MDF
facility is generated from steaming wood chips and wet emission controls. A site plan showing
the facility features is provided in Figure 3.
Wastewater from the sources described is first conveyed to Pond 5D where it is detained for
approximately 120 days. Wastewater from Pond 5D is pumped to Pond 4, where it flows by
gravity to Ponds 1 and 2, and then to Pond 3. Effluent from Pond 3 is pumped to irrigation fields
adjacent to the Mill where it is used to grow crops such as corn or sorghum and is authorized
via Permit No. WQ0003396. The fields have been in continuous use since 1987 and are being
stressed due to prolonged application of wastewater effluent. As a result, the fields cannot
uptake sufficient effluent to produce healthy crops. This limitation currently limits the Mill's
production.
y1projects12016proj\1676008.00_arauco_ww treatment reuse plan109_reports-memosllm-nutrient-memo-13sept2016.doc © Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Engineers & Scientists, P.C.
Technical Memorandum
Todd Phillips
Site Environmental Manager
13 September 2016
1676008*10
Page 2
Water Quality in the Cape Fear River Basin
The Mill is located in the Cape Fear River Basin. Shaddox Creek runs to the east of the Mill and
is receiving water for stormwater from the site. The Haw River runs west of the site,
approximately 1,000 feet from the Mill's western border. Upstream from the Mill, the Haw flows
into the manmade Jordan Lake, then through a dam. The main stem of the Cape Fear River is
formed by the merging of the Haw and the Deep Rivers in Chatham County; however, its
drainage basin reaches as far upstream as the Greensboro area (Mallin et al., 2011). The main
stem of the Cape Fear River is located approximately 0.38 river miles downstream of the Mill on
the Haw River.
The Cape Fear River basin includes reaches that are water quality limited for chlorophyll a, as
shown in Figure 2. Elevated chlorophyll a concentrations indicate potential for algae blooms,
which typically occur when several factors are present: shallow stream depth or slow stream
velocity, low canopy cover over the stream, and elevated nutrient conditions (Mallin, et al.,
2011). Die off of and decay or algae can result in hypoxia and fish kills.
Both nitrogen and phosphorous are required for algae growth, and both can be attributed to
point source and non -point sources. Arauco's wastewater contains low concentrations of total
phosphorous, but higher concentrations of total nitrogen (TN). Still water, as found in a reservoir
above a dam, permits stratification and allows algae to form near the surface. These conditions
are observed in Jordan Lake (approximately 3.8 river miles upstream from the Mill) and at
Buckhorn Dam (approximately 6.4 river miles downstream from the Mill). While it has not been
established that the Mill is a significant contributor of nutrients that results in algae blooms in the
Cape Fear Basin, this memorandum demonstrates that additional treatment and a new
proposed surface water discharge under an NPDES permit will result in a net reduction in TN to
the system, and a net improvement in water quality.
Nutrient Load to the Cape Fear Basin
Arauco discharges stormwater from the Mill under stormwater NPDES Permit No. NCS000151.
The Mill encompasses an area of approximately 137 acres, shown on Figure 4. The areas
contributing to each outfall are broken down as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Mill Drainage Areas
Area (acres)
Area Use Outfall 004 Outfall 006 Total
Agricultural (pervious) 64 14 78
Paved/Roof (impervious) 6 53 59
Total 70 67 137
y:lprojects12016proj11676008.00_arauco_ww treatment reuse plan109_reports-memosltm-nutrient-memo-13sept2016.doc © Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Engineers & Scientists, P.C.
Technical Memorandum
Todd Phillips
Site Environmental Manager
13 September 2016
1676008*10
Page 3
Table 2 summarizes benchmarks and average results of sampling of nutrients for calendar
years 2011 through 2015.
Table 2. Permit Benchmarks and Sample Concentrations
Outfall 004
Outfall 006
Parameter >
TKN
Total N
Total P
TKN
Total N
Total P
Benchmark (mg/L) >
< 20
<30
<2
< 20
<30
<2
Sample Date
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
10/11 /2011
15
17
0.2
610
610
0.7
11 /17/2011
15
23
0.05
290
290
0.6
1/17/2012
45
--
--
87
--
--
1 /27/2012
32
34
0.7
110
110
0.2
3/17/2012
20
21
0.3
51
51
0.5
4/4/2012
150
200
2
71
71
0.3
4/26/2012
32
34
0.4
210
310
0.4
5/9/2012
23
25
0.4
33
38
0.2
8/19/2012
37
37
1
130
130
0.6
11 /14/2012
36
37
0.8
170
170
0.8
7/9/2013
48
48
0.3
25
25
0.3
10/7/2013
86
87
0.3
22
22
0.2
10/29/2014
29
45
0.4
47
47
0.1
11 /7/2015
5
6
0.7
56
58
0.9
Average >
40
47
0.6
129
149
0.4
Notes/Abbreviations:
-- ' = Sample not analyzed
> = greater than
< = less than
mg/L = milligrams per liter
P = Phosphorus
TKN = Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (Ammonia + Organic Nitrogen)
TN = Total Nitrogen (TKN + Nitrate + Nitrite)
Proposed Management through Offsets
Arauco is proposing to eliminate the irrigation of wastewater on the fields and cease farming the
proposed property if an NPDES Permit can be granted for discharge of treated effluent to
surface water. The proposed strategy will include installation of a new wastewater treatment
system that can produce higher effluent water quality than the current treatment plant. The
result will be a significant net reduction in TN to the Cape Fear River Basin.
y:lprojects12016proj11676008.00_arauco_ww treatment reuse plan109_reports-memosltm-nutrient-memo-13sept2016.doc © Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Engineers & Scientists, P.C.
Technical Memorandum
Todd Phillips
Site Environmental Manager
13 September 2016
1676008*10
Page 4
Regulatory Mechanism for Nutrient Offsets
EPA formalized effluent offsets and trading through a policy statement and associated guidance
documents. The "Water Quality Trading Policy" (2003) (the Policy) document provides context
for the reduction of pollutants under the Clean Water Act and how creative and innovative
approaches will be considered to work toward the overall goal of achieving water quality goals.
In discussion of "offsets" in this memorandum, Arauco proposes offsetting nutrients from runoff
from agricultural fields by treating wastewater to a higher water quality, thereby, reducing the
input of nutrients to the basin. Because both the existing irrigation and proposed discharge are
owned by Arauco, the proposal is to truly offset (and reduce) the net nutrient input from the
Arauco facility. Although the terms "trading" and "credits" are used extensively throughout the
policy, no trading with other parties is proposed. Instead, we substitute "offset" where it can be
appropriately used. The Objectives of offsets, under EPA policy, are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Pollutant Offset Objectives
Proposed Approach Meets
Objective Objective
Achieves early reductions and progress towards water quality standards Yes
pending development of TMDLs for impaired waters.
Reduces the cost of implementing TMDLs through greater efficiency and Yes
flexible approaches.
Establishes economic incentives for voluntary pollutant reductions from N/A
point and nonpoint sources within a watershed.
Reduces the cost of compliance with water quality -based requirements. N/A
Offsets new or increased discharges resulting from growth to maintain Yes
levels of water quality that support all designated uses.
Achieves greater environmental benefits than those under existing Yes
regulatory programs.
Secures long-term improvements in water quality through the purchase of N/A
retirement of credits by any entity.
Combines ecological services to achieve multiple environmental and
economic benefits, such as wetland restoration or the implementation of N/A
management practices that improve water quality and habitat.
Abbreviations:
N/A = not applicable
TMDL = total maximum daily load
In the case of the Cape Fear River Basin where a total maximum daily load (TMDL) is under
preparation (projected to be complete in 2020), the policy provides opportunity to begin making
y:lprojects12016proj11676008.00_arauco_ww treatment reuse plan109_reports-memosltm-nutrient-memo-13sept2016.doc © Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Engineers & Scientists, P.C.
Technical Memorandum
Todd Phillips
Site Environmental Manager
13 September 2016
1676008*10
Page 5
improvements in water quality under the NPDES permit program and in accordance with the
Clean Water Act. Specifically, the policy summarizes situations where the use of offsets may
occur:
• Trading to maintain water quality standards
• Pre-TMDL trading in impaired waters.
The relevant Clean Water Act alignment areas are:
• Requirement to obtain permits through the NPDES Permit program
• Consistency with standard methods for sampling and monitoring
• Protecting designated uses
• Antibacksliding on water quality requirements
• Antidegradation of receiving waters.
The proposed improvement will meet all of the above points.
Use of Standard Methods and Information Sources
The Policy states that site -specific procedures and protocols used in water quality offsets
involving agriculture operations should estimate nutrient load delivery to the water body where
the offset occurs. In preparation of the estimated nutrient loadings the EPA Stormwater
Calculator, which uses EPA Storm Water Management Model (EPASWMM) as its numerical
model, was used to estimate annual runoff from the agricultural areas of the site. Soil data from
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) provided soils information for the estimation of nutrient loading, as was a site -specific
soil infiltration study (Shaffer, November 2015, included as Attachment 1). Standard methods
were used in the analysis of samples under the Mill's NPDES stormwater permit.
Offset Ratios
The "Water Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers" (EPA, August 2007/June 2009) provides
guidance on uncertainty ratios used for determining acceptability of offsets between a non -point
source and a point source. When one point source is used to offset another point source under
an NPDES permit, a 1:1 ratio may be justified. However, when a point source offsets a non -
point source, the confidence in the estimated flow and representative periodic grab sample is
lower than with a closely monitored point source. For this reason, there is an expectation of a
ratio of greater than 1:1 for this type of offset.
Little guidance on the required value of uncertainty ratios is provided in the EPA policy or tools.
Instead the uncertainty ratio is dependent upon many factors. The Virginia Department of
y:lprojects12016proj11676008.00_arauco_ww treatment reuse plan109_reports-memosltm-nutrient-memo-13sept2016.doc © Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Engineers & Scientists, P.C.
Technical Memorandum
Todd Phillips
Site Environmental Manager
13 September 2016
1676008*10
Page 6
Environmental Quality published a document titled "Trading Nutrient Reductions from Nonpoint
Source Best Management Practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Guidance for
Agricultural Landowners and Your Potential Trading Partners" recommends a minimum of 2:1
for non -point source pollutant offsets related to Chesapeake Bay nutrient trading.
Program Evaluation
In the Policy EPA indicates an offset program should be evaluated to confirm its effectiveness.
The proposed discharge to surface water will be under an NPDES Permit. Therefore, we expect
the permit conditions will include a requirement to evaluate the effectiveness of the offset effort.
In most cases, the monitoring requirements and effluent limitations written into the permit will be
set to provide sufficient data to verify treatment is effective at reducing nitrogen loading to the
basin.
Nutrient Load Estimation
Stormwater modeling was conducted for the irrigation field areas of the Mill. The purpose of the
modeling effort was to estimate runoff volumes to be used in calculation of nutrient loading at
the two outfall locations resulting from runoff from the irrigated fields. In estimating runoff, the
following assumptions were made:
• Irrigation of effluent was not included in the runoff quantities estimated, only estimated
rainfall runoff was used.
• Stormwater sample results are representative of rainfall runoff from the irrigation fields.
• Following cessation of irrigation, the TN concentration in runoff from the fields will be
zero.
This load estimation was prepared to illustrate the offset reduction in TN being discharged into
the Cape Fear River Basin by eliminating irrigation and discharging treated effluent to surface
water under an NPDES permit.
Rainfall from the irrigated fields will runoff and flow into outfalls 004 and 006 based on the areas
shown in Figure 4. For the purposes of this report, only the 78 acres under agricultural use were
modeled for runoff to assist in calculation of the total nutrient load.
Data Collection
Stormwater runoff modeling was conducted using EPASWMM. Soils information was gathered
from the USDA Web Soils Survey (WSS) and local soil data from the Shaffer Soil Services
y:lprojects12016proj11676008.00_arauco_ww treatment reuse plan109_reports-memosltm-nutrient-memo-13sept2016.doc © Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Engineers & Scientists, P.C.
Technical Memorandum
Todd Phillips
Site Environmental Manager
13 September 2016
1676008*10
Page 7
Technical Memorandum (November 2015). The Shaffer Soil Services work included the
following:
• Soil borings to assess site characteristics and develop a site soils map.
• Prepare detailed soil descriptions to 7 feet below ground surface.
• Saturated hydraulic conductivity evaluation.
• Infiltration assessment.
The WSS indicates that the soil within Arauco's irrigation area is primarily made up of Mattaponi
fine sandy loam (MaB), Peawick fine sandy loam (PeA and PeB), and Udorthents loamy (UdC).
Figure 5 illustrates the location of each soil type as indicated by the WSS. The Shaffer Soils
study indicated similar hydraulic conductivity values and subsequent runoff coefficients to the
WSS.
Annual rainfall data was gathered from the Sanford 8 northeast (NE) gauge, as it was the
closest to the Mill site and had the most complete data set of the gauges in the area. The TN
concentrations were estimated from the historical stormwater sampling data at each outfall from
2011 through 2015. From the rainfall data, soils data, and TN sampling results, the annual
runoff from the fields was estimated and the TN load was calculated.
Results of Modeling and Nutrient Runoff Estimation
Based on stormwater runoff volumes modeled and results of samples collected (Table 2), the
estimated nitrogen load contributed to the Cape Fear River basin from Mill stormwater runoff is
summarized in Table 4. The nitrogen loads in Table 4 represent an estimate of the contribution
to the nitrogen load as a result of irrigation with wastewater as is currently practiced.
Table 4. Annual Estimated Nitrogen Load to the Cape Fear Basin
Annual Average
Nitrogen Load
Year
Runoff
(lb/yr)
(Inches)
2011
14.1
44,236
2012
12.5
12,839
2013
19.6
7,277
2014
17.3
7,913
2015
21.1
8,749
Abbreviations:
Ib/yr = pounds per year
y:lprojects12016proj11676008.00_arauco_ww treatment reuse plan109_reports-memosltm-nutrient-memo-13sept2016.doc © Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Engineers & Scientists, P.C.
Technical Memorandum
Todd Phillips
Site Environmental Manager
13 September 2016
1676008*10
Page 8
Proposed Treatment Improvements
In April 2016, Arauco began the feasibility study and planning process to upgrade the existing
wastewater system for improved effluent quality. The original intent was to land apply a portion
of the effluent and recycle a portion of the effluent. Arauco has determined it will require
discharge of an annual average of 100,000 gallons per day (gpd) to ensure water quality is
suitable for production. The selected treatment plant will include biological oxidation of
biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), as
well as biological nitrification and denitrification, followed by membrane filtration. The treatment
process will be capable of reducing TN to less than 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L). The annual
TN load resulting from Arauco's discharge of treated effluent with a TN concentration of 10 mg/L
to the Haw River and the Cape Fear River basin would be 3,044 pounds per year (lb/yr).
Table 5 provides a comparison of estimated TN wasteload from the irrigation fields compared to
proposed surface water discharge.
Table 5: Offset Between Irrigation Runoff and the Proposed Treated Effluent
Runoff TN from
Estimated Effluent
Year
Irrigation Fields
TN Load to Surface
Offset Ratio
(lb/yr)
Water (lb/yr)
2011
44,236
3,044
14.5:1
2012
12,839
3,044
4.2:1
2013
7,244
3,044
2.4:1
2014
7,913
3,044
2.6:1
2015
8,749
3,044
2.9:1
Average
16,196
3,044
5.3:1
The estimated impact of discharging treated effluent to the Haw River provides an average
offset ratio of 5.3:1 compared to historical sampling. That indicates an estimated average
reduction of TN input to the basin of 13,152 Ib/yr or 80 percent (%) of TN load.
Conclusion
Arauco's proposal to cease irrigation of the fields at the Mill in favor of constructing a new
wastewater treatment plant operating under an NPDES permit will provide a significant
opportunity to improve water quality in the Cape Fear Basin. An estimated average of 13,152
pounds of TN per year will be permanently removed from the Cape Fear River Basin which
reduces potential for algae growth and improve water quality of the Haw River and Cape Fear
River. Based on this improvement, the proposed surface water discharge under an NPDES
permit will contribute to improved water quality in the basin.
y:lprojects12016proj11676008.00_arauco_ww treatment reuse plan109_reports-memosltm-nutrient-memo-13sept2016.doc © Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Engineers & Scientists, P.C.
Technical Memorandum
Todd Phillips
Site Environmental Manager
13 September 2016
1676008*10
Page 9
References
Accounting for Uncertainty in Offset and Trading Programs, EPA (Region III) Technical
Memorandum, 12 February 2014.
Environmental Assessment of the Lower Cape Fear System, 2011, Mallin, McIver, Merrit,
September 2012, Center for Marine Science, UNC Wilmington.
Water Quality Trading Policy, EPA Office of Water Quality, 13 January 2003.
Water Quality Trading Assessment Handbook, EPA 841-B-04-001, November 2004.
Water Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers, EPA 833-R-07-004, August 2007, Updated
June 2009.
Trading Nutrient Reductions from Nonpoint Source Best Management Practices in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Guidance for Agricultural Landowners and Your Potential
Trading Partners, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, September 2007.
Soil and Site Evaluation, Arauco-Moncure, NC Facility, Karl Shaffer, 10 November 2015.
Attachments
y:lprojects12016proj11676008.00_arauco_ww treatment reuse plan109_reports-memosltm-nutrient-memo-13sept2016.doc © Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.

Figures

y� ille.• -.Y�. ;
Fearrin
- �venUe
• - - ��' Raleigh
s-
h Qbrolina 7 2 '"' -
pe x
s r
MIS] 'OUR 1 9'
New -Hill
Holly Springs
A # t
' + " uquay V�arina + �. + a
01
1•
�• ii � -�� •�erg i �

F
Irriaation
a
ti
` #.
_ � f
t �
4L .
Z
0 150 300
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
r
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Arauco Panels USA LLC
Nutrient Offset Justification
1676008.00
September 2016
Site Plan
Figure 3

111111111 -
t
r
64 acres agriculture
0
5.8 acres paved/roof
N
a0
w
Z -
U
Q
U
(0
0
Q) r #
O
F
CORINTH ROAD
1 119
Wh � '
w
14 acres agriculture
53 acres paved/roof
,woo, +
LEGEND
Agricultural
Land
Paved/Roof/
Impermeable
;. . . E � . � .
Z
0 150 300
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
3
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Arauco Panels USA LLC
Nutrient Offset Justification
1676008.00
September 2016
Runoff Contribution Areas
Figure 4

a
MaB
0
0
r A
FV
N
M
W
F
Z
LU
(.) IL
U
PeA
NEW �A
a
0 y�
LL
0
Z
N
s
UdC `
L
UdC'
a+
" ! +
Gwqw_
MAP UNIT LEGEND
PeB
UdC a i
CORINTH ROAD
Chatham County, North Carolina (NC037)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
MaB
Mattaponi fine sandy loam,
13
18%
2 to 8 percent slopes
PeA
Peawick fine sandy loam,
6
8%
0 to 2 percent slopes
PeB
Peawick fine sandy loam,
9
12%
2 to 8 percent slopes
UdC
Udorthents, loamy, 2 to 10
45
62%
percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interests
73
100%
Z
0 150 300
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Arauco Panels USA LLC
Nutrient Offset Justification
1676008.00
September 2016
Site Soil Plan
Figure 5

Attachment

Shaffer Soil Services, Inc.
685 Sanford Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
[e-mail]
[phone]
November 10, 2015
Mr. John Bird
Arauco- Moncure Facility
958 Corinth Road
Moncure, NC 27559
John: Please find attached 2 copies of the soils and site assessment documentation for this project.
Please let me know of any questions or additional information that may be needed.
As the design is pursued, some minor modifications may be necessary for the water balance and/or
nutrient balances as per the cropping system selected.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this service to your company.
Sincerely,
Karl Shaffer, L.S.S.

Shaffer Soil Services, Inc.
685 Sanford Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
[e-mail]
[phone]
November 10, 2015
Subject: Soil and Site Evaluation
Arauco-Moncure, NC Facility
Corinth Road and Old U.S. Highway 1
Parcel 0005343
Chatham County, NC
Shaffer Soil Services, Inc. was contracted to assess soils on the subject parcel for expansion potential
for the wastewater system. This report details the findings of this evaluation.
This report satisfies the requirements for the soil evaluation and related guidance documents for
the Division of Water Resources as specified in the 2T rules, section .0500 and subsequent guidance
policies relating to these rules. The following activities were included in this site assessment:
1. Soil borings to assess site characteristics and develop a site soils map
2. Detailed soil descriptions to 7 feet
3. Soil fertility sampling
4. Saturated hydraulic conductivity evaluation
5. Infiltration rate assessment
6. Hydraulic assessment via water balance calculations
7. Agronomic and constituent loading rate assessment and recommendations
INTRODUCTION
The Moncure Arauco Fiberboard facility currently irrigates via 9 center pivots process wastewater from
the industrial process. Arauco proposes to expand the irrigated acreage for the process wastewater. The
company owns land that has not received wastewater north of the existing wastewater application
fields. This land was reviewed for potential to apply wastewater to expand the wetted irrigation
footprint. Arauco owns parcel 0005343 in Chatham County, NC.
GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
The site is presently wooded with little disturbance. Site conditions indicate that the area was once used
for row crop land, with a small homestead. The site is traversed by 2 railroad lines, a main line running
east -west and a spur to the north serving an adjacent industry. The area is an old river terrace from the
Haw and Cape Fear rivers, and it is no longer in a floodplain. Soils are formed from alluvial piedmont
materials high in fine sands, silt, and clay. Slopes are gentle and range from 0 to 4 percent. The
predominant vegetation is mature pines mixed with hardwoods.

SOIL DETAILS
Appendix 1 contains detailed soil descriptions for the site. Appendix 2 contains the map depicting the
location of all soil boring locations used to delineate specific soil types.
The soils range from fine -loamy to clayey and the soil series encountered are the following:
Drainage class
Soils with clay base
Soils with fine loamy base
Poorly Drained
Roanoke
Tomotley
Somewhat poorly drained
Wahee
Augusta
Moderately well drained
Dogue
Altavista
Poorly drained soils have a seasonal high water table within 12 inches of the soil surface. These soils are
not proposed for irrigation. Somewhat poorly drained soils have a seasonal high water table from 12 to
18 inches. These soils are not proposed for irrigation. Moderately well drained soils have a seasonal high
water table from 18 to 36 inches. These soils are proposed for irrigation (Dogue and Altavista). These
soils are further subdivided into 2 zones: Zone 1- or Map Unit 1: with depth to seasonal wetness from
18 to 24 inches and Zone 2- or Map Unit 2: with depth to seasonal wetness from 24 to 36 inches. Other
than the depth to seasonal wetness, the soils encountered across the tract are very consistent with
respect to depth of major horizons, texture, structure, and type of parent material. Clay decrease occurs
from 50 to 70 inches over the site.
For reference, the USDA official soil series description for Dogue and Altavista soils is included at the end
of Appendix 1 behind the soil boring logs.
Soil Maps
Appendix 2 shows the site aerial photos used as the soil map base.
Map 1 shows the general location.
Map 2 shows the location of the soil borings by number.
Map 3 shows the mapping unit segregations with all setbacks for irrigation and useable acreage applied.
No distinction is made between the fine -loamy Altavista soils and the clayey Dogue soils as they are
intermixed in a soil complex.
Map 4 shows the location, within the mapping units, of the hydraulic conductivity measurements.
The water balance (discussed below) is based upon the useable acreage shown on Map 3.

6 soil fertility samples were taken and submitted to the North Carolina Department of Agriculture -
Agronomic Division. Results are shown in Appendix 3. The samples were segregated to denote the major
soil units encountered. However, the results are very similar and consistent between all 6 samples. The
site has had consistent management (trees) for many years. Due to the consistence in major soil
chemistry parameters, the following information will not segregate between samples but will focus on
the key parameters.
Soil pH- Soil pH is very low, ranging from 4.1 to 4.5. This pH is adequate to grow and sustain a forested
stand. If vegetation does not change, no lime recommendation will be warranted. If the site is proposed
for clearing, higher pH will be recommended and a lime amendment can be calculated from the soil test
data.
Major soil nutrients N, P, K- N is needed for tree stands in limited quantities. The soil test N
recommendation is for high yield biomass, not the goal of a wastewater system. A more prudent
recommendation would be 40-80 pounds N/acre/year. P and K are both very low, and a light application
of P and K should occur even for tree maintenance. All of these nutrients may be supplied by the
wastewater. Calculations will be shown under the agronomic section.
Secondary soil nutrients Ca, Mg, S- magnesium is low and an amendment is recommended. This should
be applied via dolomitic limestone, if lime is applied. Ca and S are adequate and no amendment is
needed. Ca:Mg ratios are in a good range.
Micronutrients- no micronutrients are recommended.
Other- sodium is low. ESP is 5 or below and shows no current level of concern for sodium. Base
saturation is low. This will increase with wastewater additions. A level of 80-90% is ideal, pending
nutrient balances and soil pH and CEC. This will be monitored as system operation progresses.
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY ASSESSMENT (Ksat)
As required, Ksat measurements were made at representative areas on the site. The site is very uniform
in its soil conditions, and one soil mapping unit is used to define the entire proposed irrigation area.
This mapping unit consists of both Altavista and Dogue soils. While two individual soil series are
represented, the soils are quite consistent with a subsoil clay content ranging from 30% to 40%, in other
words, these are heavy Altavista soils and light Dogue soils.
Because of the size of the site, a large number of Ksat readings were performed to assess the site.
Further, both lower Bt and C horizons were measured to determine which was more restrictive.
The compact, constant head permeameter (CCHP) method was used, except for one reading with the
Aardvark permeameter which is noted in the table below.
The following table depicts the key Ksat data recorded. The Ksat test number corresponds with the soil
boring number in all cases.
4

Ksat data results
Ksat
test #
Horizon
Depth
(in)
Tubes
Steady State Flow
Rate (cm/10 min)
Calculated Ksat
(cm/hr)
Ksat (in/hr)
3
Bt
36
1
1.7
0.175
0.071
3
C
60
1
1.8
0.186
0.073
49
Bt
31
1
0.9
0.093
0.04
49
C
56
1
3.2
0.33
0.13
52
Bt
38
1
1.0
0.104
0.04
55
Bt
26
1
0.8
0.083
0.033
55
C
52
1
3.5
0.364
0.14
64
Bt
32
1
5.0
0.516
0.20
64
C
55
1
2.2
0.228
0.09
67
Bt
28
1
0.5 (Aardvark tool)
0.343
0.135
67
Bt
30
1
0.8
0.083
0.033
67
C
48
1
3.3
0.343
0.14
93
Bt
30
1
1.4
0.146
0.057
93
C
51
1
2.7
0.279
0.11
117
Bt
38
1
2.1
0.218
0.086
117
C
46
1
1.8
0.186
0.073
Summary of Ksat data.
Bt horizons
(in/hour)
C horizon
(in/hour)
Mathematical mean
0.077
0.108
Geometric mean
0.063
0.104
The Ksat data grouping show very high consistence, which supports the visual findings of a very
consistent Bt and C material. The Bt horizons on average show a more restrictive conductivity and thus

will be used for design purposes and in the water balance. The geometric mean is the preferred tool to
use for management of the Ksat data. All data points are used. The geometric mean for the data is 0.063
inches per hour. This is the data point that will be used for the site's water balance assessment, found in
the next section.
The Ksat field data sheets and calculations are found in Appendix 4.
WATER BALANCE AND HYDRAULIC RECOMMENDATIONS
The site is divided into 2 irrigation zones and the water balance reflects this as Zone 1 (Map Unit 1) and
Zone 2 (Map Unit 2). Zone 1 soils are Dogue and Altavista with a depth to seasonal wetness of 18 to 24
inches, averaging 21 inches. Zone 2 soils are Dogue and Altavista soils with a depth to seasonal wetness
of 24 to over 36 inches, averaging 30 inches.
The water balance is based on the Ksat results as well as professional judgment on the site. The
proposed application site is ideal with respect to topography and surface water drainage. Note that this
is strictly a water volume assessment and does not include the nutrient parameters that may apply. This
tool is designed to assist with hydraulic loading rates and storage volume calculations.
Other assumptions used (note, these may be modified as the system design progresses) :
1) A 0.1-acre surface area storage lagoon, uncovered. The water balance tool requires a storage
factor, although this is already covered under the existing design. The use of a storage calculator
is not necessary for system expansions such as this. So note that the 0.1 acre lagoon is not
intended to reflect either current storage or future requirements. It merely serves as a "place -
holder" factor in the water balance software for this system expansion.
2) 32,700 gallons per day design flow (note : at the time of this report, the site usage has not been
determined. This site work will support flow up to a given limit based on the field assessment.).
3) Two zones are defined for irrigation. The soil conductivities are very consistent and serve for
both irrigation zones. Zone separation is solely for purpose of offering more restrictive design
factors for the soils with seasonal wetness from 18 to 24 inches, versus the soils with depth to
seasonal wetness from 24 to 36 inches. Both zones will require groundwater mounding
modeling to determine the ultimate hydraulic loading factor.
4) The soils with seasonal wetness less than 24 inches have been assigned a drainage factor of 0.05
which is on the very conservative end of the range. The better soils (Zone 2) are assigned a
drainage factor of 0.08 due to ideal topography, surface drainage, and good internal soil
structure.
5) The wetted area used in the water balance is 7.6 acres for Zone 1 and 13.7 acres for Zone 2.
Irrigation design may not be able to wet the entire acreage, and thus this water balance may
require adjustment after the irrigation design is complete.
6) The hydraulic loadings defined by the water balance are a hydraulic assessment of the soils only.
The loadings may be modified during the design as nutrient loadings dictate.
Appendix 5 contains the water balance sheets for this project.
0

INFILTRATION RATES
Infiltration measurements were not performed at this site. Estimates and table values are used,
however, these are adjusted downward to account for the possibility of long irrigation run times. The
soil surface is a deep fine sandy loam underlain by a gradual textural increase. Infiltrative capacity is
moderate based on texture, slopes, landscape position, and soil structure. Irrigation design texts would
recommend from 0.5 to 0.7 inches per hour. However, it is important to keep these rates conservative
for wastewater application. Thus I recommend that the design irrigation rate not exceed 0.4 inches per
hour across the entire site, and the design engineer should strive to maintain a rate of 0.25 to 0.30
inches per hour.
AGRONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
For purpose of design nutrient loading, the USDA/NCSU realistic table database shall be used. The table
for Peawick soils is found in Appendix 6. Peawick soil series is the series correlated in Chatham County,
but it is similar in use and management to Dogue soils with subtle differences that only affect soil
classification.
Recent wastewater analyses have been provided and are used herein to assess nutrient loadings to the
site. These must be compared to the hydraulic loadings to determine the more limiting loading factor.
Two possible cropping scenarios are presented. Others can be entertained if desired. A summary of
recent wastewater analyses for N is found in Appendix 7. The facility does not monitor wastewater
effluent for P and K.
Nitrogen: recent wastewater analyses show that the average plant available nitrogen, by calculation, of
the wastewater is 78.7 mg/L. This correlates to every acre -inch of water applied as having 17.8 pounds
plant available nitrogen.
For a fescue stand, the nitrogen recommendation rate is 147 pounds per acre per year. At a
concentration of 17.8 pounds of N/acre-inch, the total application volume would be 8.25 inches per year
(for both Zone 1 and Zone 2). The hydraulic assessment for Zone 1 allows 13.28 inches per year. The
hydraulic assessment for Zone 2 allows 24.98 inches per year. For this scenario, N is limiting.
For a hybrid bermudagrass alone, the N recommendation is 210 pounds per acre per year. At a
concentration of 17.8 pounds of N/acre-inch, the total application volume would be 11.8 inches per year
(for both Zone 1 and Zone 2). The hydraulic assessment for Zone 1 allows 13.28 inches per year. The
hydraulic assessment for Zone 2 allows 24.98 inches per year. For this scenario, N is limiting.
For a hybrid bermudagrass stand overseeded with a winter annual grass, an additional 50 pounds of N
per acre per year may be allotted. This is the default maximum used in animal waste systems and is
applicable here. It also implies that the winter grass is sowed after the last bermudagrass cutting, and
that the grass is harvested before the green -up of bermudagrass, no later than April 15. These are
guidelines, and the weather year by year should dictate these dates. For example, a warm spring may
require ryegrass harvest by April 1. With the addition of 50 pounds N for ryegrass overseed, the N
recommendation increases to 260 pounds N/acre/year. At a concentration of 17.8 pounds of N/acre-
inch, the total application volume would be 14.6 inches per year (for both Zone 1 and Zone 2). The
hydraulic assessment for Zone 1 allows 13.28 inches per year. The hydraulic assessment for Zone 2
allows 24.98 inches per year. For this scenario, N is limiting in Zone 2 but hydraulics is limiting in Zone 1.
7

For trees, maximum N application rates are 60-80 pounds per acre per year. Using 80; at a concentration
of 17.8 pounds of N/acre-inch, the total application volume would be 4.5 inches per year (for both Zone
1 and Zone 2). The hydraulic assessment for Zone 1 allows 13.28 inches per year. The hydraulic
assessment for Zone 2 allows 24.98 inches per year. For this scenario, N is limiting.
Note: all hydraulic assessments must be reviewed for groundwater mounding, which may further
restrict the hydraulic loading. In most cases described above, the hydraulic loading is restricted by the
nutrient budget. Also note: while the permit will contain both a hydraulic and nutrient budget,
hydraulic gains can be obtained in a nutrient -limiting situation if N concentrations are reduced below
what has historically been attained.
Additional agronomic recommendations were made earlier in the soil fertility section.
This facility would not be required to apply nutrients based on a phosphorus limit. P data is not
available. I recommend that wastewater P analyses commence, to assess the amount of P being applied
to the crop as the soils are deficient in P.
K data is not available. I recommend that wastewater K analyses commence, to assess the amount of K
being applied to the crop as the soils are deficient in K.
General agronomic comments
This site is well -suited to both hybrid bermudagrass and fescue, as well as row crops. If clearing and hay
or cropping is chosen, soil amendments as described above will be needed. Calculations can be made to
determine the amount of lime, N, P, K, Ca, Mg, and S may be required.
Summary agronomic table and loading potential. Zone 1: 7.6 acres, Zone 2: 13.7 acres.
CROP SYSTEM
APPLICATION
ZONE 1
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 2
APPLICATION
LIMITED BY:
APPLICATION
HYDRAULIC
APPLICATION
HYDRAULIC
VOLUME (total
VOLUME
CAPACITY
VOLUME
CAPACITY
gallons based on
(in/yr)
(in/yr)
(in/yr)
(in/yr)
100% useable
acreage*)for
limiting
constituent
FESCUE
N
8.25
13.28
8.25
24.98
4,771,282
BERMUDAGRASS
N
11.8
13.28
11.8
24.98
6,824,383
TREES
N
4.5
13.28
4.5
24.98
2,602,519
BERMUDAGRASS
HYDRAULIC
14.6
13.28
14.6
24.98
8,171,340
WITH WINTER
LOAD -Zone 1
OVERSEED
N- Zone 2
* 100% useable acreage cannot be obtained unless drip or micro -irrigation systems are used. These are
prone to clogging and not recommended for the present wastewater.
N

SUMMARY COMMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT
1) The maximum irrigation rate is 0.4 inch per hour although I recommend the design engineer
strive to maintain less than 0.3 inch/hour. I also recommend that the maximum application
depth per event is 1.0 inch.
2) The facility will be limited by nitrogen in all cases except Zone 1 if a combination hybrid
bermudagrass/winter overseed cropping system is used. The table in the agronomic section
summarizes loading potential.
3) This project does not specify additional storage. Storage will be increased, in terms of days of
operation, by adding irrigation zones.
4) The soils with depth to seasonal wetness are not prescribed for irrigation at this time. They are
no absolutely prohibitive, however, when groundwater mounding is considered, these areas
would likely allow very little irrigation volume per year and are likely not justified to add.
5) The system is mainly N limited based on the past 12 months of effluent N concentrations. If
treatment allows for N reductions, then the hydraulic limits may supersede the N limits. It is
strongly recommended that you request the permit modification to be open-ended as to N and
hydraulic limits. This will allow additional flow, up to the hydraulic limit, if N effluent
concentrations are reduced over time.
This report and attached maps and appendices represent my professional opinion. The assumptions
and calculations are based on accepted scientific principles and data collection and interpretation. Soils
and hydraulic conductivities are naturally highly variable, and differing opinions and interpretations may
occur. The attached maps and appendices are not to be separated from this report as the use may be
misinterpreted.
I appreciate the opportunity to perform this service for your company. Please contact me if you have
any questions on this report and its addendums.
Sincerely,
Karl A. Shaffer, L.S.S.
President -Shaffer Soil Services, Inc.

Attachments:
Appendix 1— Soil Descriptions and USDA Official Series Descriptions
Appendix 2 — Maps
Appendix 3 - Soil Fertility Test Results
Appendix 4- Hydraulic Conductivity Field Sheets
Appendix 5- Water Balance
Appendix 6 — Realistic Yield Tables for Dogue (Peawick) Soils
Appendix 7 — Summary N concentrations for effluent
10

Appendix C: Cost Estimate Detail
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Arauco Panels, LLC C-1
y:lprojects12016proj11676008.10_arauco_npdes109_reports-memos19.09_repotengineering alternativesleaa reportleaa_report-fnal_13sept2016.doc

Agency:
Project/Problem:
Alternative
1
Alternative
2
Alternative
3
Alternative
4
Alternative
5
Alternative
6
Arauco Panels LLC, Moncure, NC
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Connection to Sanford Big Buffalo WWTP
Land Application
Wastewater Reuse/Recycling
Discharge to Surface Water
Combination of Alternatives
Haul Wastewater to POTW
Capital Cost 20-year
NPV
$6,776,390
($7,939,697)
$6,145,100
($7,622,250)
$7,358,000
($35,796,168)
$3,477,500
($4,839,626)
$4,123,600
($5,519,023)
$128,000
($55,838,966)

From Summary Sheet: Risk adjustments (+/- percent):
Year of analysis 2016 Benefits
Escalation rate 3.50% Capital costs
Discount rate Running costs
Expressed in 2016 dollars, unescalated -- dollars
Expressed in escalated dollars with sensitivity adjustments
Capital Outlays
3-inch HDPE Main
Grading and Preparation
Pump Station
ARV Stations
Capital outlay 5
Contingency (30%)
Total capital outlays
Benefits:
Benefit 1
Benefit 2
Benefit 3
Total benefits
Annual Running Costs:
Electricity
Pump maintenance
Valve maintenance
Level Sensorcalibration
Flow meter calibration
Pump rewinding/reconditioning
Discharge fee
Running cost 8
Total running costs
Life cycle cost analysis
PVs in 2016
NPV as of 2016
---------------------
4,000
4,140
4,285
4,435
4,590
4,751
4,917
5,089
5,267
5,452
5,642
5,840
6,044
6,256
6,475
6,701
6,936
7,179
7,430
7,690
7,959
360
373
386
399
413
428
443
458
474
491
508
526
544
563
583
603
624
646
669
692
716
480
497
514
532
551
570
590
611
632
654
677
701
725
751
777
804
832
861
892
923
955
1,000
1,188
1,411
1,675
1,990
1,000
1,035
1,071
1,109
1,148
1,188
1,229
1,272
1,317
1,363
1,411
1,460
1,511
1,564
1,619
1,675
1,734
1,795
1,857
1,923
1,990
7,000
1
1
8,314
1
9,874
11,727
13,929
30,672
31,746
32,857
34,007
35,197
1 36,429
37,704
39,023
40,389
41,803
43,266
44,780
46,347
47,970
49. 449
51,386
53,185
55,046
56,973
58,967
1 61,031
44,512
37,790
39,113
40,482
41,898
52,866
44,883
46,453
48,079
49,762
62,789
53,306
55,172
57,103
59,102
74,573
63,311
65,527
67,821
70,194
88,569
(6,820,902) (37,790) (39,113) (40,482) (41,898) (52,866) (44,883) (46,453) (48,079) (49,762) (62,789) (53,306) (55,172) (57,103) (59,102) (74,573) (63,311) (65,527) (67,821) (70,194) (88,569)
(7,939,697)
Appendix A, Page 1 of 1 Alt_1

From Summary Sheet: Risk adjustments (+/- percent):
Year of analysis 2016 Benefits
Escalation rate 3.50% Capital costs
Discount rate Running costs
Expressed in 2016 dollars, unescalated -- dollars
Expressed in escalated dollars with sensitivity adjustments
Capital Outlays
Acquire Extra 100 Acres
Piping (20,000 feet, 3 inch)
Grading/Land Prep, 6 CP Irrigation U
Irrigation pump & Controller
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Contingency (30%)
Total capital outlays
Annual Running Costs:
Electricity (10 hp, 24 hr, $0.09/kwh)
Misc Maintenance
Total running costs
Life cycle cost analysis
PVs in 2016
NPV as of 2016
5,800
6,003
6,213
6,431
6,656
6,889
7,130
7,379
7,637
7,905
8,181
8,468
8,764
9,071
9,388
9,717
10,057
10,409
10,773
11,151
11,541
1,000
1,035
1,071
1,109
1,148
1,188
1,229
1,272
1,317
1,363
1,411
1,460
1,511
1,564
1,619
1,675
1,734
1,795
1,857
1,923
1,990
48,800
50,508
52,276
54,105
55,999
57,959
59,988
62,087
64,260
66,509
68,837
71,247
73,740
76,321
78,992
81,757
84,619
87,580
90,645
93,818
1 97,102
(6,193,900) (50,508) (52,276) (54,105) (55,999) (57,959) (59,988) (62,087) (64,260) (66,509) (68,837) (71,247) (73,740) (76,321) (78,992) (81,757) (84,619) (87,580) (90,645) (93,818) (97,102)
(7,622,250)
Appendix A, Page 1 of 1 Alt_2

From Summary Sheet: Risk adjustments (+/- percent):
Year of analysis 2016 Benefits
Escalation rate 3.50% Capital costs
Discount rate Running costs
Expressed in 2016 dollars, unescalated -- dollars
Expressed in escalated dollars with sensitivity adjustments
Capital Outlays
Evaporator
Installation
Contingency (30%)
Total capital outlays
Annual Running Costs:
Evaporator Operating Cost
30 Hp pump electricity
Residual Disposal (Estimate)
Life cycle cost analysis
870,000
900,450
931,966
964,585
998,345
1,033,287
1,069,452
1,106,883
1,145,624
1,185,721
1,227,221
1,270,174
1,314,630
1,360,642
1,408,264
1,457,553
1,508,568
1,561,368
1,616,016
1,672,576
1,731,116
17,500
18,113
1 18,746
1 19,403
1 20,082
20,785
1 21,512
1 22,265
1 23,044
23,851
1 24,685
1 25,549
1 26,444
27,369
1 28,327
1 29,319
1 30,345
31,407
1 32,506
1 33,644
34,821
10,000
10,350
1 10,712
1 11,087
1 11,475
11,877
1 12,293
1 12,723
1 13,168
13,629
1 14,106
1 14,600
1 15,111
15,640
1 16,187
1 16,753
1 17,340
17,947
1 18,575
1 19,225
19,898
PVs in 2016 1 (8,297,500) (972,383) (1,006,416) (1,041,640) (1,078,098) (1,115,831) (1,154,885) (1,195,306) (1,237,142) (1,280,442) (1,325,258) (1,371,642) (1,419,649) (1,469,337) (1,520,764) (1,573,990) (1,629,080) (1,686,098) (1,745,111) (1,806,190) (1,869,407)
NPV as of 2016 1 (35,796,168)
Appendix A, Page 1 of 1 Alt_3

From Summary Sheet: Risk adjustments (+/- percent):
Year of analysis 2016 Benefits
Escalation rate 3.50% Capital costs
Discount rate Running costs
Year I
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Expressed in 2016 dollars, unescalated -- dollars
Expressed in escalated dollars with sensitivity adjustments
Capital Outlays
Misc Piping
Valves
Contingency (30%)
Total capital outlays
Annual Running Costs:
Electricity
Misc Maintenance
Life cycle cost analysis
PVs in 2016
NPV as of 2016
1,000 1,035 1,071 1,109 1,148 1,188 1,229 1,272 1,317 1,363 1,411 1,460 1,511 1,564 1,619 1,675 1,734 1,795 1,857 1,923 1,990
2,000 2,070 2,142 2,217 2,295 2,375 2,459 2,545 2,634 2,726 2,821 2,920 3,022 3,128 3,237 3,351 3,468 3,589 3,715 3,845 3,980
(3,522,500) (46,575) (48,205) (49,892) (51,639) (53,446) (55,316) (57,253) (59,256) (61,330) (63,477) (65,699) (67,998) (70,378) (72,841) (75,391) (78,029) (80,760) (83,587) (86,513) (89,540)
(4,839,626)
Appendix A, Page 1 of 1 Alt_4

From Summary Sheet: Risk adjustments (+/- percent):
Year of analysis 2016 Benefits
Escalation rate 3.50% Capital costs
Discount rate Running costs
Expressed in 2016 dollars, unescalated -- dollars
Expressed in escalated dollars with sensitivity adjustments
Capital Outlays
Piping
Grading/Land Prep
Misc Piping & Valves
Land Purchase
Contingency (30%)
Total capital outlays
Annual Running Costs:
Electricity
Misc Maintenance
Total running costs
Life cycle cost analysis
PVs in 2016
NPV as of 2016
1,100
1,139
1,178
1,220
1,262
1,306
1,352
1,400
1,448
1,4991
1,552
1,606
1,662
1,720
1,781
1,843
1,907
1,974
2,043
2,115
2,189
3,000
3,105
3,214
3,326
3,443
3,563
3,688
3,817
3,950
1 4,089
1 4,232
4,380
1 4,533
1 4,692
4,856
1 5,026
1 5,202
5,384
5,572
1 5,768
5,969
46,100
1 47,714
49,383
51,112
52,901
54,752
56,669
58,652
60,705
1 62,830
1 65,029
67,305
1 69,660
1 72,098
1 74,622
1 7
79,937
1 82,735
1 85,630
88,62
91,729
(4,169,700) (47,714) (49,383) (51,112) (52,901) (54,752) (56,669) (58,652) (60,705) (62,830) (65,029) (67,305) (69,660) (72,098) (74,622) (77,234) (79,937) (82,735) (85,630) (88,627) (91,729)
(5,519,023)
Appendix A, Page 1 of 1 Alt_5

From Summary Sheet: Risk adjustments (+/- percent):
Year of analysis 2016 Benefits
Escalation rate 3.50% Capital costs
Discount rate Running costs
Expressed in 2016 dollars, unescalated -- dollars
Expressed in escalated dollars with sensitivity adjustments
Capital Outlays
Storage/Equalization Tank
Concrete (4 CY)
Tank site prep
Contingency (30%)
Total capital outlays
Annual Running Costs:
Haul Wastewater
Tank maintenance
Discharge Fee
Total running costs
Life cycle cost analysis
PVs in 2016
NPV as of 2016
off
1,825,000
1,888,875
1,954,986
2,023,410
2,094,229
2,167,528
2,243,391
2,321,910
2,403,176
2,487,288
2,574,343
2,664,445
2,757,700
2,854,220
2,954,118
3,057,512
3,164,525
3,275,283
3,389,918
3,508,565
3,631,365
400
414
428
443
459
475
492
509
527
545
564
584
604
626
647
670
694
718
743
769
796
15,120
15,649
16,197
16,764
17,351
17,958
18,586
19,237
19,910
20,607
21,328
22,075
22,847
23,647
24,475
25,331
26,218
27,135
28,085
29,068
30,086
1,840,520
1,904,938
1,971,611
2,040,617
2,112,039
2,185,960
2,262,469
2,341,655
2,423,613
2,508,440
2,596,235
2,687,103
2,781,152
2,878,492
2,979,240
3,083,513
3,191,436
3,303,136
3,418,746
3,538,402
1 3,662,246
(1,967,920) (1,904,938) (1,971,611) (2,040,617) (2,112,039) (2,185,960) (2,262,469) (2,341,655) (2,423,613) (2,508,440) (2,596,235) (2,687,103) (2,781,152) (2,878,492) (2,979,240) (3,083,513) (3,191,436) (3,303,136) (3,418,746) (3,538,402) (3,662,246)
(55,838,966)
Appendix A, Page 1 of 1 Alt_6