Paper Mill Client Analysis Report

Energy Pro USA www.energypro-usa.
com
Paper Mill
Client
Project Analysis Report

______________________________
-- Draft --
For Discussion Purposes Only
Energy Pro USA

Energy Pro USA www.energypro-usa.com
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 3
Key Projects and Annual Savings ........................................................................................................ 4
Electrical Demand Reduction............................................................................................................... 6
Models.................................................................................................................................................. 7
Projects ........................................................................................................................................................ 16
1. #1 and #2 PM 1st Dryer Section to DP Control ............................................................................ 17
2. Electrical Load Reduction Plan.................................................................................................... 21
3. Modeling ...................................................................................................................................... 23
4. Paper machine Change Over Reduction....................................................................................... 29
9. Buy/Sell Modeling ....................................................................................................................... 39
Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

2
Executive Summary
Introduction
Client and Energy Pro-USA have entered into an agreement to combine resources to improve Client’s
profitability by reducing the cost of energy required at the Client location mill, and increasing productivity of
the processes there.
This Analysis Report outlines the business opportunities identified by Energy Pro-USA during our
assessment of the Client mill. It further identifies areas for profit improvement which will require additional
study. Business opportunities are presented for approval, based on the following priorities:
Alignment with Client business strategy

Risk adjusted return on investment
Minimum time and ability to implement
Along with these business opportunities, a set of statistical models is presented as the basis for measuring the
actual contribution to profit for each of these improvement measures. These models have been audited by an
independent firm and found to accurately measure plant electrical load, plant steam consumption, and
monthly production for paper machines 1 and 2. Additional modeling tools are forthcoming.
Finally, this report provides a basis for agreement on investment, plans and schedules for improvement
initiatives. Since the economics of each improvement measure depend on the time and cost required to
implement them, changes to plans and schedules must be reviewed promptly and the economic impact
assessed. The report sets forth a change management process to objectively deal with unforeseen events and
assign accountability for costs associated with the change.

3
Key Projects and Annual Savings
Energy Conservation
Electrical Load Reduction ($375,500-$616,500 total)

A. Pump Motors $ 306,500 – $ 489,500
B. Pulping Systems $ 28,000 – $ 42,000
C. Machine Drives $ 10,000 – $ 20,000
D. Building Ventilation $ 8,000 – $ 13,000
E. Compressed Air $ 23,000 – $ 52,000
Condensate Loss Capture $ 183,000
Steam Trap Repair $ 141,000
Insulation $ 50,000
Total Energy Conservation Savings $ 749,500 – $ 990,500
Process Improvement
Paper machine Change-Over Reduction $1,670,000 - $4,360,000

Stock System Changes $3,020,000 - $4,430,000
Total Process Improvement Savings $4,690,000 - $ 8,790,000
Capital Projects
#1 PM 1st Dryer Section to DP Control

#2 PM 1st Dryer Section to DP Control c
Capital Project Savings* $ 325,000
*Additional potential Capital Projects are identified later in this report.
Buy/Sell Modeling
Buy/Sell Modeling x
Management Tools
Energy and Productivity Modeling

4
Prioritization
Client and Energy Pro must agree and sign-off on prioritization of projects. Projects will be reviewed in
order of priority at all meetings. Status reports, resource allocation and jeopardy resolution should also be
handled in order of priority.
Below is an initial prioritization for discussion and agreement between Client and Energy Pro:
Project Annual Notes

Savings
1. #1 and #2 PM 1st $325,000 Capital Project
Dryer Section to DP
Control
2. Electrical Load $306,500-
Reduction $489,500
3. Modeling Phase 1 – Plant-Wide Energy
Modeling – Complete. Phases
Remaining: Meters Installed,
Sub-Modeling
4. Paper Machine $1,670,000- Dependent on Stock System
Change Over $4,360,000 Changes Project and Capital
Reduction Projects #1 and #15
5. Stock System $3,020,000-
Changes $4,430,000
9. Buy/Sell
Modeling

5
Electrical Demand Reduction

Client’s goal is to eliminate purchased power from the utility. To achieve this goal, facility electrical power and steam consumption must be reduced. Facility electrical
power consumption should be reduced as far as possible and steam consumption should be reduced up to the point where all turbine – generators are at peak output. In
order to achieve this goal, steam use by the process and building heat must be reduced by approximately 64.8 thousand pounds per hour.
Energy Pro has identified projects that will positively impact megawatt reduction as follows:
Electrical Load Reduction: 1.20 MW
Steam Conservation: 12.7 kpph or 19.6% of the 64.8 kpph goal ( 0.52 MW equiv)
Energy Pro has further targeted steam reduction opportunities that currently achieve 77% of the 64.8 kpph goal. Further efforts are required to define projects within these
as of yet examined areas. ** For a project to be executed, it must fall within the investment criteria outlined on page Error! Bookmark not defined..
Electrical Power Savings Process and Heating Steam Savings

Target Savings by Area (in kWh / year) Target Reduction (in kpph Average Steam Flow / year)
Models
Overview
Statistical models for each of the major production processes have been completed using historical data from
the period of April 2006 through April 2008 (except for the Steam Model which continues to August 2008).
Models for steam and electricity are driven by a set of production and utility related independent variables.
Actual steam and electricity usage (as measured by specific meters) are the dependent variables. Models for
production for each machine were similarly developed. Each of these models will be reviewed, tested, and
validated with plant personnel before adoption. Later, these models can be complemented by a set of “first
principle” models aimed at further improving the precision of our analysis of improvement opportunities for
operations.
Models serve the dual purposes of providing a tool for control of daily operations as well as a means to
quantify achievement of system improvements. An Enterprise Optimization Model (“EOM”) has been
developed to provide a user friendly interface to the models. It combines current data from the mill
processes with the various models to produce online reports and charts showing actual results versus model
predicted values.
Each of the models is introduced below. Model parameters are listed along with their coefficients. Charts
are provided showing the closeness of fit between predicted and actual values. The EOM is then presented
along with a series of screen showing various reports. Management control using data from EOM is
discussed. Finally, a few important future modeling plans are highlighted.
Plant-Wide Energy Models

The Plant Wide Energy Models for Electricity and Steam are data-based multiple regression models based on
two years of daily data. The two tables below show basic model construction and values for constants within
the models. We use R squared (“R2”) for each model to determine the proportion of total variation in the
dependent variables described by the model. The R2 values for each model are quite high at 94.7% and
97.9%, respectively.
Model Model
Plant Electricity Load = PI Steam =

127119 3082.97
+ 708.469 * Cool +8.68969 * Heat
+ 134.410 * Heat -6.36449 * River_Inlet_Temp
+ 0.00944304 * +0.01427 * Gen6_TOT_KWH
FS_MASS_PRODUCTION
+0.00213 * Gen5_TOT_KWH
+ 0.0597008 * DR_mass_produced
+0.00568 * Gen4_TOT_KWH
+ 18.9504 * PM02_run_time
+0.00446 * Gen3_TOT_KWH
+ 0.985946 * PM03_Avg_jl_width
-0.06226 * turbine3_delays_min
+ 25.8653 * PM03_schedule_time
+ 902.775 * PM03_Jumbo_reels
+ 0.0632147 * PM09_Jl_mass
+1.27616 * turbine6_delays_min
+ 0.0176264 * PM09_Jl_length
-72.6520 * boiler_10_delays
+ 24.3388 * PM09_schedule_time
-131.765 * boiler_10_startup
- 6.77090 * turbine3_delays_min
-24.5356 * boiler_14_delays
-93.2005 * boiler_14_startup
+3.11039 * PM02_sets_wound
+0.00010799 * PM02_Jl_length
+134.260 * PM02_first_reel
**Information sources for each variable can be
found in the Appendix. +4.19324 * PM03_sets_wound
+0.21707 * PM03_schedule_time
+2.27681 * PM09_avg_grammage
+4.83078*PM09_sets_wound
+0.16084*PM09_schedule_time
+0.00023676*DR_mass_produced
-0.0003358*wash_step

8
When actual electricity load is plotted over time versus predicted load, the two curves coincide nicely. The
small variations that do exist between the two are fairly randomly distributed. The plot of predicted versus
actual load on an XY plot shows that the model fits well along the entire range of values.

Plant Electricity Load: Actual vs Predicted
Dec 01, 07 to Apr 18, 08
300000
KWH
200000
100000
1 2 00 7
08
1 /2 00 8
2 /2 0 8
2 /2 00 8
08
22 0 8
8
8
08
8
2 /9 08
2 /1 0 08
8
08
8
7
7
1 /5 07
00
00
00
1 2 /20 0
1 2 /20 0
1 2 2 00
00
00
/2 0
20
20
/2 0
0
0
/20
/2
/2
/2
1/ 2
8/ 2
5/ 2
2
/2
/2
/2
/1 /
9/
6/
6/
3/
/1 5
/2 2
/2 9
/8
12
15
29
12
3/
3/
4/
1 /1
12
1/
3/
3/
3/
4/
Actual Predicted

Pred(Plant_load) / Plant_load
400000
350000
300000
Plant_load
250000
200000
150000
100000
100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000
Pred(Plant_load)


9
When actual steam load is plotted over time versus predicted load, these two curves also coincide nicely (see
Figure 3). Once again, the small variations that do exist between the two are fairly randomly distributed.
The plot of predicted load versus actual on an XY plot (see Figure 4) shows that the model fits well along the
entire range of values.
Plant Steam: Actual vs Predicted
May 01, 08 to Aug 24, 08
7000
6000
5000
MLb
4000
3000
2000
8
8
8
8
8
08
08
08
08
08
08
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
20
20
20
20
20
20
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
1/
8/
4/
6/
2/
9/
15
22
11
18
25
13
20
27
16
23
30
8/
8/
7/
6/
5/
5/
8/
8/
7/
6/
6/
6/
7/
7/
5/
5/
5/
Actual Predicted

Pred(steam_pi) / steam_pi
8000
7000
6000
steam_pi
5000
4000
3000
2000
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Pred(steam_pi)

10

11
Productivity Optimization Models
Daily productivity models for paper machines 1, 2, and 3 are data-based multiple regression models based on
two years of daily data. The three tables below show basic model construction and values for constants
within the daily models.
PM01 - Daily Management PM02 – Daily Management

Model Model
PW_Mass_P= PW_Mass_P=
0.0113025 * run_time +0.326821 * Avg_basis_weight
‐0.0479143 * lostime_enpro_total +0.00439925 * run_time
‐0.00719767 * operation_enpro_total +0.0530020 * JL_calc_machine_speed
‐0.0434667 * curtail_total +0.00187354 * avg_J_width
+0.0472929 * JL_Calc_machine_speed ‐2.21861 * PM_Start_Up
+0.185598 * Avg_basis_weight ‐0.0466085 * curtail_total
+0.00263173 * avg_J_width ‐0.0500801 * lostime_enpro_total
PM03 – Daily Management

Model
PW_Mass_P=
+0.285661 * Avg_basis_weight
+0.0186283 * JL_calc_machine_speed
+2.65418 * jumbo_reels
‐0.0340673 * curtail_total
‐0.0449420 * lostime_enpro_total
‐0.0771185 * Abs_weight_grade_scale
‐0.779588 * weight_grade_change
‐6.07602 * pm_start_up

12

13

14

15
Projects
This section contains detailed project information including identification of key resources and timelines for
the following prioritized projects:
1. #1 and #2 PM 1st Dryer Section to DP Control

2. Electrical Load Reduction
3. Modeling
4. # 2 Mill Change Over Reduction
5. Stock System Changes
6. Condensate Loss Capture
7. Steam Trap Repair
8. Insulation
9. Buy/Sell Modeling
10. Business Process Improvements
Each Project Section includes the following:
Loss Ladder
Project Details & Dependencies
Measurement of Results
Project Team
Timeline

16

Loss Ladder
Loss due Steam Venting to Atmosphere
Loss Approximately $325,000 / yr of steam is lost because 50 pound steam is vented to the
atmosphere after being used in the Dryer Cans on #1 and #2 Paper Machines
Cause After steam is used for drying, there is steam that accompanies the condensate (blow-
through steam). Normally, this steam is separated out in a steam separator and reused
in a lower pressure section (wet end dryers). In the case of #1 & #2 PM , it is vented
to atmosphere, which is a huge waste of steam. The control of the flow of blow
through steam is normally done by limiting the pressure drop across the dryer (steam
supply to condensate header).
Action The steam and condensate systems for the #1 and #2 PM have not been updated and
maintained to control the drying process or capture the blow through steam. The
system in use is antiquated.
Why Financial reserves have not been available to provide adequate controls to capture this
blow through steam from the process
Recommendations Use improved siphons, and change the steam and condensate system
Install differential pressure control
Revise the system to cascade blow through and flash steam from the main section
dryers to the 18 Lb steam header.
General Project Overview

1. General Engineering of the Project Based upon the work completed on #3 PM
2. Detailed Engineering and Calculations for the project building upon the engineering by a
professional engineering firm APEC
3. Complete Engineering Drawings approve P & I D’s, specify valves and controls
4. Procure Valves, pipes, and equipment.
5. Contractor Bidding
a. Non Destructive Testing of the Dryer Cans. - JLM
b. Steam Piping and Installation – TG Young
c. Installation of Journals, siphons, and flex hoses plus – Steam Systems Inc..
d. Condensate Piping and Installation – TG Young
e. Condensate Tanks, and Pump fabrication – Steam Systems, Inc
f. Process Controls, and electrical installation – Client, Cornerstone, Invensys, and Cougar
Electric.
6. Installation of equipment on the run
7. Installation of equipment during maintenance outages

17
8. Tie in to live steam lines during mill shutdown

18

Project Team
Title Name Contact Info Responsibilities
Energy Pro Project coordination, implementation

Engineer scheduling, oversee project from
Energy Pro perspective
APEC – Furnish Contractor Drawings, P & I
Consulting D’s and check sizing calculations,
Engineers specify valves, and equipment
Project Engineer Approve all designs, review all
specifications, oversee project from
Client Perspective.
Operations General Management of the Mill and
Manager Project
Paper Making Paper Making Operations
Manufacturing
Manager
Electrical Mill Electrical Supervision, design

Engineer and installation.
Sr. Process Project & Process Control Engineer

Control Engineer

19
Timeline (Italic represents completed Steps)

Work Item Description Start* Finish*
1 Preliminary Engineering 4-22-08 5-05-08

2 Detail Engineering 5-06-08 7-08-08
3 Bid meeting with contractors 6-6-08 8-31-08
4 Procure Equipment 5-22-08 7-31-08
5 Non-Destructive Testing 8-14-08 10-01-08
6 Construction of Steam Lines upstairs 6-11-08 7-15-08
7 Programming of Control System 8-15-08 10-15-08
8 Install Electrical wiring 6-6-08 10-18-08
9 Construction of Condensate Lines downstairs 9-1-08 10-18-08
10 Installation of Journals, Siphons, and flex hoses on Dryer Cans 10-18-08 10-18-08
12 Tie in to Live steam System 10-18-08 10-18-08
12 Commissioning 10-19-08 10-19-08

20
2. Electrical Load Reduction Plan
Electric Cost Calculation

To ensure we investigate, develop and execute projects that meet our mutually agreed upon investment
criteria, we must estimate the valve per unit energy saved. Using historical data, we have arrived at the
following conclusion:
Internal Marginal Cost to 4.016 cents per KWH It is estimated that the incremental benefit for
Generate Electricity saving KWH electricity will be $ 0.05611 /
Hourly data analyzed for 367 Days KWH
% of Time when Duke 61.59% From the chart, we calculate the incremental
purchase price exceeds savings potential for electrical power to be
marginal cost to produce 61.592 % x $ 0.0259 or $ 0.0160 + $
0.0416 / KWH or $ 0.05611 / KWH. This
Average sales price when there 6.606 cents per KWH
exists the opportunity to sell analysis methodology and result must be
Power confirmed by all Steering Committees.
Potential Incremental Margin 2.590 cents per KWH

resulting in Power Sales
Increasing Coal Costs – If coal were to increase from an average of $ 77.68 to $ 120.00 per ton, the average
cost to generate steam would increase approximately 54%, as would the resultant cost to generate electricity.
In that the above analysis is dependent on historical buy and sell pricing, we cannot apply this coal cost
increase to our analysis except to conclude that market price for peak power will tend to increase. Electrical
Buy Sell price projections are out of the scope of this report.
Measurement of Results
All Electrical Load Reduction projects Plant Electricity Load: Actual vs Predicted
will be measured by the Plant-Wide
Dec 01, 07 to Apr 18, 08
Electricity Model.
300000
KWH
200000
100000
12 007
1/1 008
1/2 008
2 /2 08
2/2 008
3 /1 08
08
22 08
3/2 008
4 /5 08
08
2 /9 08
7
08
7
8
1 /5 07
3/1 008
4/1 008
12 /20 0
12 /20 0
00
12 200
20
/ 20
20
20
/ 20
/ 20
/20
/2
8/ 2
/2
2
/2
2
6/2
/2
5/2
/2
/1/
/8/
9/
3/
9/
2/
/15
/22
/29
12
16
3/
12
1/
2/
3/
Actual Predicted

21
2. Electrical Load Reduction Plan
Prioritization Target Savings by Area (in kWh / year)

Our objective is to identify
opportunities and develop
projects to save 10,700,000
kWh per year or , on average,
approximately 1.2 MW.
The chart at left illustrates our
initial estimates and is used to
prioritize the areas we will
investigate.
For a project to be executed, it
must fall within the mutually
agreed upon investment criteria.
Investigation
The Electrical Load Reduction Plan is broken into various areas of inquiry. See individual plans for each
area. Work in these different areas will be conducted concurrently.
A. Pump Motors - From the above chart – over 70% of energy reduction
opportunities will result from addressing pumping inefficiencies.
B. Pulping Systems – There is new technology that will reduce the energy
require for re-pulping fiber.
C. Machine Drive – Evaluate current drive technology to seeking
opportunities to employ new cost effective technology to improve
efficiency.
D. Building Ventilation – Improve the efficiency of building ventilations
systems.
E. Compressed Air Utilization – Eliminate unneeded or inefficient uses of
compressed air.
F. Other Electrical Projects – As with all such projects, investigation
frequently uncover previously unforeseen opportunities to save
electricity.*

22
3. Modeling
Loss Ladder
Electrical Power reduction
Loss The targeted amount of power reduction is 3 Megawatts. Our analysis found
$590,000 of Electricity (1.2 Megawatt). Identified steam losses are $560,000 (0.35
MW Equiv.), steam opportunities targeted for large capital are $1,630,000 (1.03 MW
Equiv.) a remainder of $650,000 (0.41 MW Equiv.) is as of yet undetermined.
Cause Energy using equipment does not employ the most efficient available technology;
Action There is no detailed energy data reported / modeled with sufficient sensitivity to
detect the result of most individual energy conservation initiatives.
Why Financial reserves have not been available to provide adequate instrumentation and
controls to monitor energy use.
Recommendations • Utilize the model design in process created by Bob Stein.

• Use Modeling to report the amount of energy consumed per unit of production.
• Feedback to operators and correct energy inefficiencies.
Project Details and Dependencies

Modeling tools can impact operating practices and measure the profitability of capital projects.
• The energy sub models will allow operators and department managers to see how changes in
operational procedures, practices, or decisions in their area impact energy usage on a daily basis as
well as see the effect of specific projects in their area on energy usage.
• Sub models are based on real time or near real time data and provide Client the opportunity to
change operating practice in order to reduce energy intensity.
• Energy is saved in two ways, by investing in new equipment or modifying existing equipment or by
learning to better operate existing equipment. Of the two, the latter provides the most rapid payback
and frequently, the greatest ancillary benefit. Providing associates the tools to measure the impact
of minor operating improvements encourages floor level innovation, empowering the very people
that are in the best position optimized a process.
• Sub metering also provides a continuous measure of equipment wellness.

23
3. Modeling
Energy Modeling is a three-phased project. Phase 1 will create electric and steam models at the plant-wide
level. In order to create responsive operational area models, Energy Pro will implement a metering project to
collect real time electric and steam consumption and power factor data. The installation of meters will allow
energy pro to then create energy sub-models. Sub-models provide the ability to model energy consumption
of specific areas of the process.
Phase 1 - Energy Modeling at Plant-Wide Level Complete
Phase 2A – Electrical Metering 11/30/08

Phase 2B – Electrical Sub-Modeling 02/27/09
Phase 3A – Steam Metering 03/31/09

Phase 3B – Steam Sub-Modeling 05/31/09
Total Steam Metering is dependent upon finishing metering for the new turbine plant. Honeywell target is
end of March, 2009.
Phase 1 – Energy Modeling at Plant-Wide Level

This phase is complete. Additional details can be found in the modeling section of this report.
Phase 2A – Electrical Metering

In order to provide better management of the electrical demand reduction initiative, as well as provide real
time – near real time feedback on the operation of key production areas, the following sub meters will be
installed in the electrical distribution network.

Project Costs
Preliminary estimates are that the electrical metering initiative will cost approximately $ 150 k plus the
additional labor on the part of Client and Energy Pro personnel to capture and store the data for analysis.
POWERHOUSE Boilers, Turbines (Old and New)

MILL01 Paper Machine 3
Winder
Casting / Coating Drums
Embossers
Sheeters
Rewinders
MILL02 Paper Machine 1
Paper Machine 2
Winder
WWTP Waste Treatment

24
Phase 2A – Electrical Metering
Project Team
Energy Pro Project coordination, Data
Engineer Gathering and analysis,
implementation scheduling.
Power Motor Systems Analysis and
Engineer Optimization
Plant Electrical Power
Utilization Analysis and
Optimization
Client PI Data Implementation and
Liaison Scheduling
Timeline
Work
Description Start Finish
Item
1 Initial Review of Sub Metering Needs – Meter communication protocol. 9-2-08 9-3-08
2 Determine Metering points and Complete Meter Plan. 9-4-08 9-23-08
3 Solicit Bids from meter suppliers and installation contractors 9-26-08 10-12-08
4 Sub Metering Review Meeting (Data and Operational Steering Committee, DSC 10-13-08 ;
and OSC). Review Proposal and recommend suppliers
DSC, OSC
5 Sub Metering Review Meeting (Executive Steering Committee (ESC) 10-14-08 ;
Review and Approve DSC and OSC recommendations ESC
6 Order Metering Equipment 10-15-08 10-16-08

7 Schedule Metering Equipment Installation - OSC 10-17-08 ;
OSC
8 Install Meters 10-27-08 11-14-08
9 Program Meter to collect data in the PI System 11-15-08 11-25-08
SP
10 Validate Meter Operation – DSC and OSC 11-26-08 11-30-08

25
Phase 2B – Electrical Sub-Modeling
Electrical sub-models will be developed by Energy Pro to meter production nodes. The models will be
incorporated into the Energy Pro EOM (Enterprise Optimization Model) portal.
This target date is dependent on the completion of the electrical meters being installed. Any delays to the
Phase 2A – Electric Meter Installation will result in a day-to-day slip of this target date.
Project Team
EP Sr. Data analysis, modeling
Statistician
Sr. Process Project & Process Control
Control Engineer
Engineer
Timeline
Work
Description Start Date Stop Date
Item
1 Data Analysis, Integration and Automation 12/01/08 12/31/08
2 Models Created 01/01/09 01/23/09
3 EOM Programming and Testing 01/24/09 02/26/09
4 EOM Release with Electric Sub-Models 02/27/09 02/27/09

26
Phase 3A – Steam Sub Metering
Project Team
Client PI Data Implementation and
Liaison Scheduling
Timeline
Work
Item
#2 Mill – 50lb Steam Meters Installed 11/01/08
#1 Mill Steam Meters Installed 03/31/09
#2 Mill – Steam Meters Installed 02/28/09

27
Phase 3B – Steam Sub-Modeling
This target date is dependent on the completion of the steam meters being installed. Any delays to the Phase
3A – Steam Meter Installation will result in a day-to-day slip of this target date.
Project Team
EP Sr. Data analysis, modeling
Statistician
Sr. Process Project & Process Control
Control Engineer
Engineer
Timeline
Work
Description Start Date Stop Date
Item
1 Data Analysis, Integration and Automation 04/01/09 04/15/09
2 Models Created 04/16/09 05/01/09
3 EOM Programming and Testing 05/02/09 05/20/09
4 EOM Release with Steam Sub-Models 05/31/09 05/31/09

28
4. Paper machine Change Over Reduction

Loss Ladders
Loss due to Length of Set-Up Time to Change Over Paper Machines
Loss Approximately 500 tons / yr, of business is turned down, (Gross Operating Margin
$506/ton * 500 tons = $250,000 / yr)
Cause Excessive set-up time makes short runs (less than 2000 lbs) uneconomical
Action Management has not provided the equipment or procedures to make fast changeovers.
Why Capital expenses / limitations and survival issues have prevented management from
focusing on this issue.
Recommendations Identify waste during the change over process working with the engineers, to come up
with ways to change grade and/or basis weight quicker with the same or better results.
Loss due to Changing Over Paper Machines in #2 Mill
Loss Depending on market conditions, $1,670,000 to $4,360,000 per year is lost because
the paper machines make broke during color and weight changes. Each machine
averages 55 color/weight changes per month, or 1320 changes total per year for both
machines. Reducing the average time per grade change by one minute saves
approximately $36,000/yr per machine.
Cause The paper machines make broke (off grade) paper when grades are changed.
Recommendations The industry’s best practice is to change over in 10 minutes, making approximately
600 lbs of broke. Set a new target to average 15 minutes per change. Achieve these
changes by:
• Performing an assessment of change over process activities and document
procedures.
• Performing engineering study for the supporting equipment improvements, to verify
that the new procedures and engineering improvements can achieve lower targets.
• Incorporating additional solutions from teams into the new changeover procedure.
• Developing a simulation model of the paper-making process in # 2 Mill that will
allow the team and Client management to evaluate the effect of proposed changes
prior to implementation.

29
4. Paper Machine Change Over Reduction
Key Metric: color change time as entered by the back tender (from turn up of the reel to the Beater
Engineer’s decision “on color” or machine/back tender’s decision “on grade”, which ever happens
last)
Baseline Metric: average color change time from January through June 2008, as reported during
that time.
Progress Metric: to be reported out and tracked. Progress will be measured by this metric: average
color change time by paper machine over the previous week, i.e. the metric is a weekly average.

30
Paper Machine #1 and #2 employees and supervisors studied each step of the color change process.
They generated more than 40 ideas to reduce the color change time, some of the top priority ideas
include:
• At changes – dyes running at wall, BE at wall, ABE in color room
• Teamwork on changes – one BE filling MC while other making change
• Daily – post color change data. Make it very visible to show
• Standard definitions for the 5 or 6 types of changeovers.
• Pre-change checklist to ensure ‘homework’ is done for upcoming change
• Identify and try some type of individual dye flow meter/indicator to confirm dye pump is
working.
There are two phases to this project. Phase 1 will reduce the color change times for Paper Machine
1 and 2 by 10 minutes by 12/31/08. Phase 2 will reduce the color change time an additional 20
minutes by 3/31/08.
These changes will allow Client to bid on short runs that they weren’t able to do in 2007 because of
excessive color change times. Approximately $5M in new business was lost in 2007 for this reason.

31
4. #2 Mill Change Over Reduction

Measurement of Results PM03 Prime Mass: Actual vs Predicted
April 2006 to April 2008
The Paper Machine Changeover Project will be Billing
measured by the Monthly Productivity Models. 1800.00
1600.00
PM02 Prime Mass: Actual vs Predicted
1400.00
Tons 1200.00
Billing
1800.00 1000.00
800.00
1600.00
600.00
1400.00
6
06
7
06
7
06
07
07
07
07
08
08
00
00
00
00
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
/2
/2
/2
/2
Tons 1200.00
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
/1
/1
/1
/1
4/
6/
8/
2/
4/
6/
8/
2/
4/
10
12
10
12
1000.00
Actual Predicted
800.00
600.00
7
07
07
07
07
06
06
08
08
06
00
00
00
00
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
/2
/2
/2
/2
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
/1
/1
/1
/1
2/
4/
6/
8/
6/
8/
2/
4/
4/
10
12
10
12
Actual Predicted
Project Team
Energy Pro Project coordination, data
Engineer gathering and analysis,
Assistant Paper #2 Paper Machine
Making
Manufacturing
Manager
Beater Room Beater Room
Coordinator
Making
Manufacturing
Manager
Assistant Paper Beater Room & Pulping
Making
Manufacturing
Manager
Manufacturing
Manager

32
Timeline
Work
Item
Discovery 05/15/08
Identification Sept 2008 12/31/08
*Dependency - #1 & #2 PM DP Steam Control (Capital Projects) 10/18/08
Phase 1 – Reduce Changeover by 10 minutes 12/31/08
*Dependency – Stock System Changes Project 03/31/09
Phase 2 – Reduce Changeover by additional 20 minutes 03/31/09

33

Loss Ladder
Stock Prep
Loss Depending on market conditions, $3,000,000 to $4,000,000 per year is lost due to flushing
fiber from the stock prep area and sheet breaks in #2 Mill (see Appendix J).
Cause • It takes over 5 hours of runtime to flush the system (Stock Prep and Paper machine)
• Benchmark similar operations that have systems which allow changeover within 10
minutes. Reducing changeover time would save 250 minutes of flush time.
Recommendations Reconfigure the couch pit piping and eliminate the saveall. Steps required will be:
• Evaluate the need for additional pumps, piping, and chest to capture the increased
flow of material during sheet breaks. Validate engineering design and supply flow
calculations.
• Perform failure mode analysis and risk analysis for the project
• Route the couch pit pump line to the machine chest.
• Control the pump-out rate by level control
• Install controls to maintain couch pit consistency at 4-5% Consistency control
water to be WW from the seal pit.
• Limit fresh water flow to couch pit by reusing process water for showers.
• Write new procedures for grade changes to minimize fiber left in chests and couch
pit and for operating during a sheet break. Work with the operators to implement
the new procedures.

34

1. When changing from one color to another without flushing the machine, the task is to minimize the
time required for the machine to achieve stability on the new color.
2. The stability is influenced by:
• The amount of stock contained within the machine chest, couch pit and saveall system
• The recycle of stock from the trim through the saveall back to the machine chest
3. The current practice to minimize the time to stability is to dump the couch pit (trim plus excess
water) when starting the color change. While this procedure is effective to minimize changeover
time, it also results in considerable loss in good fiber to the sewer with the attendant wastewater
treatment and sludge disposal costs.
Proposed Action Plan
Objective: Reduce/eliminate fiber losses to the sewer due to grade changes and sheet breaks.
Energy Pro simulated Client # 1 PM and determined the amount of time for the system to equilibrate after
changing colors at the pulper is over 300 minutes without dumping chests to the sewer.
Changes to the Stock System will be simulated to predict a new value for change over time, based on
operating scenarios provided by Client. These simulation changes are the basis for the engineering cost
estimate, and savings projected for the improvement.

35

Next steps
A. Agree to Process Configuration Options

B. Write Operating Scenarios –describe how the new configuration operates
1. Grade change - Colors and whites
2. Breaks
3. Combination of above
C. Class 10 Estimates for Stock System Changes
D. Economic Analysis utilizing Simulation Results for Proposed Operating Scenarios
E. Design & Engineering for the Changes
F. Construction
G. Write operating procedures and work with operators on implementation.
Measurement of Results PM03 Prime Mass: Actual vs Predicted

Billing
1800.00
The Stock System PM02 Prime Mass: Actual vs Predicted

1600.00
April 2006 to April 2008 1400.00
Changes Project will be Billing
Tons 1200.00
measured by the 1800.00

1000.00
1600.00
Monthly Productivity 800.00
1400.00
600.00
Models. Tons 1200.00
7
6
08
08
07
07
07
07
06
06
06
00
00
00
00
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
/2
/2
/2
/2
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
/1
/1
/1
/1
2/
4/
2/
4/
6/
8/
4/
6/
8/
10
12
10
12
1000.00
800.00 Actual Predicted
600.00
7
08
08
6
07
07
07
07
06
06
06
00
00
00
00
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
/2
/2
/2
/2
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
/1
/1
/1
/1
2/
4/
8/
2/
4/
6/
8/
6/
4/
10
12
12
10
Actual Predicted

36
Project Team
Energy Pro Engineer Project coordination, data
gathering and analysis,
implementation
scheduling.
Making
Manufacturing Mgr
Beater Room Beater Room
Coordinator
Making
Manufacturing
Manager
Assistant Paper Beater Room & Pulping
Making
Manufacturing
Manager
Manufacturing
Manager
Paper Making Engineering for all stock
Engineer system changes
Timeline
Work
Item
Simulation July 2008 10/31/08
Operating Scenarios Write-Up Sept 2008 11/30/08
Engineering Cost Estimate 10/15/08 11/15/08
Acceptance & Approval 11/15/08 12/15/08
Project Launch 1/2/09 1/2/09
Project Construction 1/2/09 2/28/09
Write Operating Procedures 1/2/09 2/28/09
Tie-In and Commissioning 3/1/09 3/1/09

37

38
9. Buy/Sell Modeling
Objective
Create a Model that provides real time scheduling knowledge that optimizes the gross margin resulting from
the operation of the firm’s boilers, turbines and process steam applications. Revenue sources are the sale of
power to the grid and sale of specialty paper (Heavy weights, deep colors, special coatings).
The Steam / Power Generating Model will interface with:

1. Individual EP Process Models – Steam and Electrical consumption by production center.
2. Real Time pricing information for power purchases from the power broker / utility.
3. Steam / Power plant operation cost information (coal, water, parasitic load factors)
4. Process Efficiency data for both Steam Generation and Power Generation by boiler and turbine
– generator set. It will reference historical data as well as calculate real time efficiencies.
5. Process Steam Demand by schedule and real time.
6. Building environmental heating steam demand based on temperature, wind speed and direction.
The model will provide real time process control recommendations for:
1. Turbine 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 power generation rates, steam flow rate and exit temperature.
2. Anticipated steam generation requirements for boilers 10 and 14
3. Anticipated steam demand for 18 #, 50 # and 165 # steam by process center.
4. Anticipated power demand by process center.
5. Target power available for sale or recommended utility purchases
6. Purchase price of power, Gross Margin of Power Sales or avoided loss of Power Purchases
7. Economic Calculations - cost of each the above steam or power flows to the plant for paper
production.
Discussion Points
1. There is insufficient boiler capacity to meet all turbine generators and process steam
requirements simultaneously.
2. The entire 600 psi output from boiler #10 can pass through turbine #6 to generate 185 psi steam
and generate about 9 MW of electricity.
3. Turbine #5 is the most economic source of 18 psi steam that is used for process heat as well as
most building heat at flows over 2 MW. Turbine # 8 is more efficient for flows under 1.5 MW.
4. There will be limited capacity of 185 psi steam to operate condensing turbines (#3, #9, #10)
5. Turbine #9 extraction and Turbine #7 will need to be analyzed in terms of best cost for the
production of 50 psi steam to dry paper.
6. Process steam values (margin per pound) will be supplied to this model.
7. Boiler #14 will be converted to Bio Fuel to generate premium priced power in the near future.

39

40
Turbine / Generators Parameters

Steam Maximum
Flow Maximum Input Output Steam
per KW Output Pressure Pressure Flow
(pounds) (kw) (psi) (psi) (kpph)

1 Turbine #3 13 6,000 185 Condensing 78.00

2 Turbine #5 47 7,500 185 18 352.50

3 Turbine #6* 32.5 9,846 600 185 320.00

4 Turbine #2 70 1,000 185 50 70.00

5 Turbine #1 47 1,500 185 18 70.50

6 Turbine #7 13.4 9,400 185 Condensing 125.96

7 Turbine #8 13.4 9,400 185 Condensing 125.96

41

Paper Mill Client Analysis Report

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Paper Mill Client Analysis Report

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Energy Pro USA www.energypro-usa.

Project Analysis Report

Energy Pro USA

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

Alignment with Client business strategy

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

Electrical Load Reduction ($375,500-$616,500 total)

Paper machine Change-Over Reduction $1,670,000 - $4,360,000

#1 PM 1st Dryer Section to DP Control

Energy and Productivity Modeling

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

Project Annual Notes

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

Electrical Demand Reduction

Electrical Power Savings Process and Heating Steam Savings

Plant-Wide Energy Models

Plant Electricity Load = PI Steam =

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

PM01 - Daily Management PM02 – Daily Management

PM03 – Daily Management

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

1. #1 and #2 PM 1st Dryer Section to DP Control

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

1. #1 and #2 PM 1st Dryer Section to DP Control

General Project Overview

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

1. #1 and #2 PM 1st Dryer Section to DP Control

Energy Pro Project coordination, implementation

Electrical Mill Electrical Supervision, design

Sr. Process Project & Process Control Engineer

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

1. #1 and #2 PM 1st Dryer Section to DP Control

Timeline (Italic represents completed Steps)

1 Preliminary Engineering 4-22-08 5-05-08

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

2. Electrical Load Reduction Plan

Electric Cost Calculation

Potential Incremental Margin 2.590 cents per KWH

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

2. Electrical Load Reduction Plan

Prioritization Target Savings by Area (in kWh / year)

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

Recommendations • Utilize the model design in process created by Bob Stein.

Project Details and Dependencies

• Sub metering also provides a continuous measure of equipment wellness.

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

Phase 1 - Energy Modeling at Plant-Wide Level Complete

Phase 2A – Electrical Metering 11/30/08

Phase 3A – Steam Metering 03/31/09

Phase 1 – Energy Modeling at Plant-Wide Level

Phase 2A – Electrical Metering

POWERHOUSE Boilers, Turbines (Old and New)

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

Phase 2A – Electrical Metering

6 Order Metering Equipment 10-15-08 10-16-08

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009

Project Analysis Report April 8, 2009