Tobacco Documents Online

P A R K s 0 o PhilicOJ~nfidentral I N T E R - O F F I C E C O R R E S P O N D EpN"'~~Fi v.A8C Chester, Virginia To: Distribution From: S.Z. Shakeri Subject: WEL-2 Clean-Up Project Date: July 14, 1992 A meeting is scheduled on July 16, 1992 in T-2 from 1-2:30 p.m. The objective of this meeting, is to identify alternatives for using Rotoshears in WEL-2 clean-up. Please review the attached preliminary list of options and their force fields. Your feedback will enable us to define each option for sel!ecting an alternative which is most economical and beneficial for our process. Your attendance is greatly appreciated. Distribution: J.T. Bandy D.C. Budd D.R. Donaher L. Jackson M.A. Mills J . Ji. Sharkey cc: a:wel2.szs D.A. Clark W.G. Estes D. L.;:.Jenkinst D.C. Saunders

Issues Options A. Filtering WEL-2 PhCohflrdenfial ili ~j,,~ (all vs. ai~f'4d$Y-ABC B. Rotating Screen (0.010" vs. 0.005")~ C. Rotoshear unit size (3672 vs. 2448) D. Location of Rotoshear (Blend'Pulper vs. Stock Chest) E. Rotoshear shower (clean WEL-2 vs. fresh water) Instalil existing 3672/0.005"-0.010"over Stock Chest to clean part of the WEL-2 2. Install existing 3672/0.005"-0.010° over the Blend Pulper to clean part of the WEL-2 3. Install existing 2448'/0.00511-0.010" over Stock Chest to clean part of the WEL-2 4. Install existing 2448/0.005"-0.010"over the Blend Pulper to clean part of the WEL-2 5. Do not clean WEL-2 (utilize existing rotoshear else where in the process) 6. Purchase and install 6072/0.005"-0.010" over Stock Chest 7. Purchase and install 60'72/0.005"-0.010" over Blend Pulper

Issues A. All WEL-2 + * More sand removal .cal . onfien ti l _ * Additional equm~nAAB{; (neither of the two rotoshears can~ beused~ to handle all WEL-2 flow to Blending) * Utilize existing R. E. * Eliminate steam usage in HWEL tank * Higher fiber capture rate Partial WEL-2 + ------------------------------- * Can utilize existing units 2448/0.005"' or 3672/0.005" (no additional equip. cost) ---------------------------- * Piping modifications * Less sand removed * Storage tank for CWEL * H.E. for CWEL * Less fiber captured * DWEL to be heated by steam (water intro. into the process, yield loss, tank deteriation) * Can not use existing H. E. on the DHWEL

B. + philip On~d~r7ti$l Screen Ir- (0.005" vs. 0~010M(+ ------------------------------ * No additional cost (screen already purchased) * Less possibility of pluggage @ the TME shower & HDC * Higher fiber capture rate C. ---------------------------- * Lower flow rate * Possibility of more frequent shower usage @ the rotating screen Rotoshear Unit Size (2448 vs. 3672) + ------------------------------- * Refund on 3672 unit minus screen cost * Utilize 3672 unit some where else in the process ---------------------------- * Limit on hydraulic capability of 2448 unit * Possible high maintenance cost due to age of the unit

D. Location (stock chest vs. blend pulper) + ------------------=-PQff11d-en .-- . philipM~ tlal * Znsufficient fiMti+r~y~ compensate for problemsC caused by WEL-2 overflow * only need to operate one rotoshear * Hard piping in place * No additional costs for support foundation R. * Higher hard piping cost if CWEL is used on rotoshear shower Rotoshear Shower Water C1ean AEL-2 (vs. fresh hot water) ------------------------------- * Higher yield due to less water in the system * Lower HFW demand @ WWT (cost saving) * Less RBW overflow to WWT * Reduced~variability of consistency in the pulper or stock chest during shower usage --------------------------- * Additional piping cost * Less effective cleaning characteristics * Possible booster pump: required!