The UK is currently the 14th largest per capita consumer of paper and board products in the world, up from 16th position in 1993. In 1995, each person in the UK used 193.6kg of paper and board in comparison with 3.7kg per person in India. Worldwide, the consumption of paper products is set to rise substantially over the next few decades, especially in the developing world.
The aim of this briefing is to provide a general understanding of
the processes and issues associated with the paper manufacturing process
and provide answers to the following basic questions.
Worldwide, the pulp and paper industry is huge and technically diverse operating a wide variety of manufacture processes on a range of fibre types from tropical hardwoods to straw. This complexity means that this briefing can only be fairly general and provide a simplified overview. The briefing is divided into three sections, based around different fibre sources: wood, recycled fibre, and non wood fibres.
As the vast majority of virgin pulp originates from wood sources, pulping processes will be considered in that context. Pulping of non wood fibres is discussed in the non wood fibres chapter.
For the most part, pulp and paper mills are integrated with all production stages taking place on the same site. However, most mills in the UK produce paper only, relying on imported pulp.
The primary raw material in paper manufacture is cellulose fibre. Wood consists of approximately 50 per cent cellulose, 30 per cent lignin (a resinous adhesive which holds the fibres together), and 20 per cent aromatic hydrocarbons and hemicellulose carbohydrates. In order to obtain cellulose in usable form for paper manufacture the wood or plant material must be pulped to separate the fibres and remove impurities. The higher the cellulose content of the pulp, and the longer the fibres, the better quality the paper. Hardwoods generally contain a higher proportion of cellulose but of shorter fibre length than softwoods, which are more resinous.
Outlined below are the principal pulping processes.
i. Sulphate (Kraft)
Kraft or sulphate pulping is the dominant method of pulp production in the world by virtue of its versatility and the high strength, long fibre, very low lignin content pulp it produces. There are no Kraft mills in the UK and so all Kraft pulp used by UK paper and board manufacturers (1,399,000 tons in 1995)1 is imported. In fact, the Kraft process was prohibited in several densely populated areas due to the sulphurous smell associated with the mills2. Softwood chips are the principal wood source, although the process can be adapted to any tree species.
The process involves boiling wood chips in a sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) and sodium liquor. This separates the lignin and wood resins from the cellulose fibre pulp, which is then washed and, if necessary, bleached. The majority of Kraft mills operate a closed loop system whereby 95 per cent - 98 per cent of the chemicals used in the process are recovered and reused. This means that, in comparison with other processes, small amounts of chemicals are needed to produce large amounts of pulp: about 20kg of sodium sulphate and 75kg of calcium carbonate are required per ton of pulp3.
The waste products from the process are generally burned to provide energy.
Each ton of wood chips used yields about 0.5 tons of pulp (compared to 0.9 - 0.95 tons for mechanical pulp). Another major disadvantage of Kraft pulp is that, due to its dark colour, it requires strong bleaching agents if it is destined to become white paper.
ii. Sulphite
Sulphite pulping uses similar equipment to Kraft but involves a different chemical process. The resulting pulp is characteristically strong, soft and lighter in colour than Kraft pulp, thus requiring less bleaching. Again there are no sulphite mills in the UK, so all sulphite pulp has to be imported (108,000 tons in 1995)4, its major end use being tissue products.
Sulphuric acid or hydrogen sulphite is used to 'cook' the raw material in a liquor with a reactive metal base (usually calcium, magnesium or sodium) or ammonium to produce an acid sulphite or bisulphite pulp. Whilst closed loop systems can be applied to sulphite processes, they are dependant on the base metal used. In general terms chemical recovery rates for sulphite pulping are not as high as for Kraft although in terms of energy use sulphite has the slight edge (see section 1.6a) with roughly equivalent pulp yields. Water consumption for both chemical pulping methods is high (see section 1.6b).
i. Groundwood Pulping
This is the most basic form of pulping and simply involves the grinding
of debarked logs or chips to separate the fibres. There are currently
two mechanical pulp mills operating in the UK, producing 548,000 tons
of pulp in 19955.
The quality of the pulp is low as the fibres produced are broken by
the grinding and still surrounded by lignin. This means the paper products
produced are weak and turn yellow more quickly. As a consequence, mechanical
pulp is largely used for newsprint and paper products which require
little tear strength. Whilst the pulp yield per ton of wood is much
higher than chemical pulping (around 0.95 tons)6
the amount of imported energy required is approximately double that
required by the chemical process (see section 1.6a). Water consumption,
however, is roughly one third of the amount required by chemical pulp
mills (see section 1.6b).
ii. Thermomechanical pulping (TMP)/Chemo- Thermomechanical Pulping (CTMP)
Two variations of the mechanical process are widely used in the pulp
industry with the aim of reducing energy consumption by pre-softening
the wood chips. In thermomechanical pulping, which is used on softwoods
only, the chips are steamed prior to grinding. In the chemo- thermomechanical
process the wood chips are first impregnated with sulphur-based chemicals
which extract some resin and lignin from the fibre prior to steam softening.
Both these modifications results in a stronger pulp which can be applied
to higher quality end uses.
Table 1: Summary of Pulping Characteristics
|
|
Yield |
Water Use7 |
Pulp Quality |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Kraft |
50 per cent |
160-205 tonnes/tonne pulp |
High |
|
Sulphite |
|||
|
Mechanical |
90-95 per cent |
45-68 |
Low |
|
(C)TMP |
- |
- |
Medium |
|
Non Wood Fibre |
- |
- |
All grades |
|
Recycled |
60-90 per cent |
1-100 tonnes/tonne paper |
All grades |
Note: Figures are approximate; where necessary they have been converted from different units. Figures are unavailable for non wood fibres and (C)TMP due to the wide diversity of different processes in use. Figures apply only to the pulping process unless otherwise stated.
The bleaching part of the pulp and paper manufacture process has so far proved to be the most controversial in environmental terms. The process is dependent on the type of pulp involved and the destined end use.
Mechanical pulp, being high in lignin content, is usually 'brightened' using hydrogen peroxide. This alters the chemical structure of the lignin, lightening its colour but leaving it present in the pulp. Lignin removing chemicals such as chlorine are not used because this would result in a large reduction in yield8. Hydrogen peroxide is environmentally benign but the process does require quite high levels of energy and is relatively expensive. Other chemicals used to produce brighter mechanical pulps include hypochlorites and sodium bisulphite9. It should be noted that approximately half the mechanical pulp produced is used for products which do not require brightening 10.
Chemical pulp is routinely delignified to remove the 5 per cent - 10 per cent of lignin remaining after the pulping process. Traditionally chlorine gas has been used for this, followed by several stages of treatment with chlorine dioxide or hyperchlorite to further whiten the pulp.50 to 80 kilograms of elemental chlorine are required to bleach one tonne of pulp (see glossary). Approximately 10 per cent of this chlorine will combine with organic molecules to form a range of organochlorines in the process effluent11. Most notorious amongst these are dioxins and furans.
The dioxin scares of the mid-1980s drove forward bleaching technology towards Totally Chlorine Free (TCF), and Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF) processes.
TCF bleaching combines oxygen delignification with peroxide brightening in a series of treatment stages. Enzymes may be used to enhance the bleaching process and a 'chelating' agent (EDTA) is added to bind the metal ions contained in the pulp and prevent them decomposing the hydrogen peroxide. TCF technology is improving, but as yet paper whiteness achieved by this method is only ISO 70- 86 per cent ('full brightness' is ISO 90 per cent+). The addition of an ozone bleaching stage to the sequence can improve this to ISO 85-90 per cent. However the use of ozone is problematic as it readily attacks cellulose and the level of process control required contributes significantly to the cost.
ECF bleaching technology also uses oxygen delignification, but later stages use chlorine dioxide, in combination with other chemical agents, in a sequence of treatments to achieve 'full brightness'. A typical sequence would include chlorine dioxide, caustic soda, oxygen and hydrogen peroxide12.
Both ECF and TCF processes are likely to yield less pulp per tonne of wood fibre than conventionally bleached pulp, because the increased number of bleach/wash stages results in greater fibre loss. TCF, which has the most protracted bleaching cycle, has the lowest yield.
Industry opinion is divided as to the relative merits of ECF and TCF processes. Market demand for TCF pulp is almost exclusively European (primarily German) and it is produced predominantly by the Nordic pulp and paper industry to give them a market advantage in Europe over North American pulp. The North American industry elected to install ECF technology, arguing that not only was it cheaper but that the environmental benefits of TCF over ECF were questionable13.
The huge diversity of paper and packaging products and the processes necessary for their manufacture make any in-depth description unrealistic in this context. This section will therefore concentrate on general product types and environmental issues raised by their production.
i. Newsprint
Newsprint is cheap, often contains a high proportion of recycled fibre with little or no additives and is of low strength and quality. Brightness requirements for newsprint are low and can therefore be easily and cheaply achieved without chlorine. Recent development of colour printing technology has led to demand for a slightly higher quality product, but of all paper product categories newsprint is still potentially the most benign in environmental terms.
ii. Printing and Writing
A broad range of products come under this heading which includes fine and coated papers. Typically, they would require an opaque paper with an even water repellent surface. A number of additives are used to achieve these specifications.
iii. Household and sanitary (tissues)
All tissue products need to be absorbent. Resin acids and other wood products which coat the cellulose fibres reduce their absorbency and therefore need to be removed by strong bleaching agents - traditionally chlorine. However, chlorine-free tissue products are now available which use a combination of hydrogen peroxide bleaching and specialised drying processes to achieve high absorbency levels.
Many household and sanitary products also require wet strength. To achieve this synthetic resins (some of which may be organochlorine based), Urea or melamine formaldehyde are added to the pulp.
iv. Packaging
Many packaging products are coated with a variety of coverings, depending on end use. Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) and Polyvinylidene Chloride (PVDC) plastics are commonly used, which emit furans and dioxins when incinerated and are not degradable if committed to landfill. Packaging products are often bleached unnecessarily.
Table 2: Paper Production by Product Category
|
Product Type |
World production in Tonnes15 |
UK paper consumption16 |
Pulp / fibre type |
Additives |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newsprint |
32,404,000 (14 per cent) |
19.5 per cent |
mostly mechanical and/or recycled with some Kraft or sulphite |
- |
|
Printing and Writing |
70,039,000 (31 per cent) |
32.4 per cent |
bleached wood free chemical, some unbleached (C)TMP |
china clay (gloss), chalk (matt), titanium dioxide, size |
|
Household and Sanitary |
13,125,000 (6 per cent) |
5.4 per cent (Tissues) |
softwood sulphite, some Kraft and recycled |
synthetic resins, Urea, melamine formaldehyde |
|
Packaging |
98,983,000 (43 per cent) |
39.5 per cent |
Kraft |
wax, plastic, metal foil |
|
Other |
13,858,000 (6 per cent) |
3.2 per cent |
- |
- |
Whilst a great deal of technical literature exists on the effects of
pulp/paper effluents on their receiving watercourses, several factors
make it difficult to produce a conclusive picture:
However, general areas of concern can be identified and these are outlined below.
High levels of suspended solids can also cause problems of both water opacity and blanketing of river or lake beds. Severe blanketing may also result in anaerobic decomposition under the blanket releasing hydrogen sulphide into the aquatic ecosystem.
These problems are reasonably localised. However, organic solids can also absorb many of the toxins present in mill
effluents, such as resin and fatty acids and heavy metals. This
can have long-term effects over a wider area as a result of bioaccumulation
and transportation through the food chain.
The collective quantity of organochlorines present can however be measured and three techniques are commonly used for this: AOX (which is most commonly used), EOX and TOCl (see Glossary). Whilst these measurements are useful up to a point, there is no direct correlation between the observed toxicity of mill effluents and the quantity of organochlorines present.
Chlorophenolics
Formed in chlorine-bleached chemical pulping processes (up to 70g/tonne
- highest in softwood pulp effluents20).
Not only are they themselves toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative,
but they can transform into other compounds which are even more
so.
As a group, chlorophenolics and their transformation products are probably the most hazardous chemical group in pulp and paper mill effluents, being present in higher concentrations than more toxic compounds such as dioxins. Substituting chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine in some bleaching process stages significantly increases chlorophenolic production21.
The chlorophenolic group contains phenols, guaiocols and catecholes. Biotransformation products include anisoles and verathroles. The most common chlorophenolics are the extremely toxic and persistent trichlorophenol and pentachlorophenol.
Dioxins (PCDD) and Furans (PCDF)
Dioxins are extremely toxic, persistent and carcinogenic. Furans
are chemically similar but an order of magnitude less toxic and
less persistent than dioxins. Raw material type does not seem to
significantly influence the amounts formed. Dioxins and furans tend
to accumulate more in the pulp itself than in the effluent. This
has led to concern about dioxin levels in finished paper products
and wastewater treatment sludge disposed of via landfill or incineration,
as well as in liquid mill effluents. Dioxins are also known to be
present in mill flue gases.
The known effects of PCDD and PCDF on fish and mammals are wide-ranging but any link to effects on humans is proving hard to establish. They are, however, suspected of causing miscarriages, birth defects, liver damage, skin complaints and behavioural and neurological problems. Bioconcentration through the food chain, via fish, is a major concern.
Chloroform and other neutral chlorinated compounds
This group includes chloroform, chloro-acetones, - aldehydes and
-acetic acids which are formed during the bleaching process but
in lower concentrations than chlorophenolics. Whilst generally compounds
in this group are non-persistent and non-bioaccumulative, some are
moderately toxic, mutagenic and/or suspected carcinogens. The major
concern is the likely effect of human exposure to chloroform via
drinking water and air. The United States Environmental Protection
Agency (US-EPA) has identified pulp bleaching as the single largest
source of atmospheric chloroform22.
Use of chlorine dioxide, the basis of ECF bleaching, has led to problems of chlorate production. Chlorate is a powerful herbicide which can severely affect waterborne algae.
Chelating agents used in TCF technology bind trace metal ions in the pulp to prevent them degrading the peroxide. This increases the metal load in effluents and is an issue of concern; however, the environmental impact of the process is so far largely unknown24.
Air emissions from chemical pulp mills are primarily made up of particulates, hydrogen sulphide, oxides of sulphur and oxides of nitrogen. Micro-pollutants include chloroform, dioxins and furans, other organochlorines and other volatile organics. As with liquid effluent discharges the levels of emissions are highly dependent upon the type of process technology employed and individual mill practice. Another important factor is the fuel type and quality. Whilst older mills caused severe air pollution, mitigating technology now exists to eliminate most harmful gas and particulate emissions. Whether this technology is utilised depends on local factors such as legislation, company and mill policy and proximity to populated areas. The major pollutants and their effects are summarised in Table 3 on page 6.
The contribution of the paper industry to global warming has been an ongoing debate for several years, with some suggesting that the absorption of carbon dioxide by plantation forestry more than offsets the emissions of greenhouse gases caused during the production, transportation and disposal of pulp and paper products. A recent study by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) dismisses this argument, concluding that the paper cycle results in the net addition of some 450 million C02 equivalent units per year25.
Solid waste from paper manufacture ranges from 10- 250kg/t (dry equivalent)26. Disposal is usually to landfill, although incineration is becoming increasingly widespread. Other experimental disposal techniques include using the waste as a soil improver but, as with all disposal options, there is some concern about possible dioxin and heavy metal contamination.
Table 3: Air Emissions from the Pulp and Paper Industry
|
Pollutant |
Effects |
Source |
Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Carbon dioxide |
greenhouse gas |
fuel combustion |
see section 1.4b |
|
Hydrogen sulphide |
rotten egg smell |
Kraft process |
very low odour threshold (5 to 10 ppb) makes it very difficult to remove smell completely. Kraft process is banned in Germany because of this. |
|
Sulphur dioxide |
acid rain |
fuel combustion and pulping process. (Kraft 1-3 kg SO2/tonne)27 , sulphite 5kg SO2/tonne ) |
contribution to acid rain problem could be significantly reduced by switching from fossil to wood waste fuels. |
|
Volatile organics |
some toxic effects and precursors to the formation of ozone |
|
|
|
Chloroform |
toxic, possible carcinogen |
chlorine bleaching |
see liquid effluent discharges |
|
Other organo- |
some highly toxic |
chlorine bleaching |
see liquid effluent discharges |
ppb=parts per billion
Primary treatment involves the mechanical removal of suspended solids from effluents by settlement or other means. It may be the only wastewater treatment employed in many mills worldwide; however, more often emission standards require secondary and possibly tertiary treatment. The effectiveness of these subsequent treatments depends upon efficient primary treatment, which itself reduces BOD and AOX.
Secondary treatment uses micro-organisms to accelerate the natural decomposition of organic waste. The two main methods used are aerated stabilisation and activated sludge treatment - both are known as aerobic treatments.
The efficiency of these two systems varies widely, depending on climate, influent quality, pulp type, fibre source and mill practice. In ideal conditions, activated sludge performs better at reducing BOD and removing suspended solids28. Disadvantages of both methods of aerobic treatment include high energy consumption and production of sludge waste.
Newer anaerobic treatments are now coming into use, particularly with effluents from the (C)TMP process.
Tertiary or non-biological chemical treatments are expensive and only applied in a few mills. Aluminium oxide, ferric oxide and polyelectrolytes assist coagulation of waste in the effluents, which are then sand filtered.
The pulp and paper industry is a major energy consumer, using 2,000-6,500 kWh to produce one tonne of dried pulp. Whilst chemical pulping actually requires more energy than mechanical(6,350 kWh/tonne Kraft; 5,400 kWh/tonne sulphite) the processes are largely energy self-sufficient through the burning of waste products to generate steam. Mechanical pulping requires imported electrical energy (2,000 kWh/tonne)29. Different bleaching processes require varying amounts of energy, with ECF requiring most at 4.0 kWh/kg and TCF requiring least at 1.0 -2.0 kWh/kg30.
Abstraction of water for the industry is significant both in terms of quantities used and the possible damage caused to the adjacent environment. Problems associated with water use include increased sedimentation and turbidity, increased water temperature, loss of habitat diversity, possible concentration of toxic material and lowering of water tables. Chemical pulping uses 159,000-204,000 litres / tonne, whereas mechanical pulping uses less, at 45,000- 68,000 litres / tonne31.
The term 'recycled' can be broadly interpreted to include three types of waste fibre:
Different recycled paper products may contain any or all of these types of waste; most are now classified so that it is possible to determine the fibre source. Most often 'recycled' includes both pre-consumer and post-consumer waste.
Worldwide use of recycled fibre in paper production was approximately 114 million tons in 199532, which is 39 per cent of total fibre used. This figure is projected to rise to 190 million tons by 2005 (49 per cent). In the UK 55 per cent of fibre used by UK manufacturers is recycled33, although this varies with product type, with a high proportion being used in packaging but very little in office paper. Only 33.9 per cent34 of the paper we consume is recovered. The packaging industry is committed to increasing waste paper recovery, in line with EU requirements, to 50 per cent by the year 2000 and the newspaper industry has undertaken a voluntary commitment to increase recycled content to 40 per cent by 200035.
Waste paper and board is categorized into 11 grades ranging from high-quality printing and writing (grade 1) to low-quality unsorted (grade 11). See Table 4 on page 8.
Bulk grades are usually mechanically re-pulped, often with the addition of caustic soda and aluminium sulphate. Large contaminants such as wrapping and baling wire are removed before the pulp is washed and sorted to remove smaller impurities and short fibres which would weaken the new product. Dispersion agents are often used at this stage, and the pulp will be washed and milled at least twice, the water used is then treated to concentrate the contaminants.
The resulting mechanical pulps are prone to darkening, which is prevented by the use of hydrogen peroxide or sodium hypochlorite. Additional bleaching as described for virgin pulp may also be used. Sulphuric acid is sometimes added to the pulp to stabilise it and maintain brightness.
For higher quality products, de-inking or a chemi- mechanical pulping process which includes de-inking is necessary. After the re-pulped fibre has been washed and sorted to remove solid impurities it is heavily diluted. Chemicals such as detergents, dispersants and foaming agents are added which separate the ink from the fibre and the pulp is aerated so that the ink forms a foam on the surface. This is then separated off and concentrated into a sludge for disposal.
The fibre yield from re-pulping and de-inking is dependent on the filler content and quality of the input fibre, the process technology and final product, but ranges from 60- 92 per cent36. Recycling low quality and heavily printed fibres and tissue products produces the lowest yields.
Studies on emissions from recycling plants are much more limited than those for virgin pulp and paper mills and the data available is not conclusive by any means. However, the indications from two fairly comprehensive and independent studies is that effluents from recycling plants have less environmental impact than virgin pulp effluents37.
Pre-treatment levels of suspended solids and Biological Oxygen Demand are likely to be higher in de-inked re- cycled effluents than virgin pulp effluents but, more significantly, COD and AOX (see Glossary) are likely to be lower38. Non de-inked recycled fibre effluents show significantly lower TSS, BOD and COD than de-inked, hence BOD and TSS levels will be higher the lower the grade of paper used. As discussed in the previous section, technology is available to remove most of these pollutants from effluent streams.
Heavy metals in recycling mill effluents is also a cause for concern.
Metals such as copper, chromium, lead, zinc, nickel and cadmium are
commonly used in printing inks and are discharged not only to wastewater
but also to waste sludges and some remain in the final paper product.
Dioxins and furans do occur in re-pulped effluents, although little
is known about their precise source. Ogilvie (1992)39
maintains that, overall, recycling reduces dioxin emissions by reducing
demand for bleached woodpulp.
Gaseous and particulate emissions to air from the recycled paper making process primarily come from the incineration of de-inking sludges and fuel combustion. Direct emissions from the process itself are minimal and considered to be relatively insignificant, although again little research has been done in this field.
Relatively large amounts of solid waste result from the production of recycled paper although, obviously, overall recycling reduces waste volume. This waste comes in the form of bale wrappers and wire, sorting rejects and, more significantly, pulping and de-inking sludges, comprising water, cellulose fibre, fillers and ink. The amount of waste is dependent upon paper source and product type but is typically 15-100kg solid waste and 90kg (newsprint) to 520kg (tissues) sludge per tonne of de-inked recycled paper40.
Traditionally this waste has been consigned to landfill. Incineration is becoming more widespread but is an unsatisfactory solution as burning sludge produces a relatively high proportion of ash and gaseous emissions. Other disposal options in the initial stages of development include composting and techniques to remove clay and other fillers for reuse are also being developed.
Table 4: Waste Paper Categories
|
Grade |
Source |
End use |
|---|---|---|
|
Grades 1 to 4 |
Pulp substitute grades ie. high-quality sorted printing and writing |
Printing and Writing Kraft wrappings |
|
Grade 5 |
Newsprint |
Newsprint |
|
Grades 6 to 11 |
Bulk grades ie Lower quality unsorted paper |
Packaging and Board products |
The toxicity of the sludge is a matter of debate within the industry. Heavy metal contamination is of concern with respect to direct landfill, incinerator ash disposal and composting, and incineration produces significant air emissions of CO2, NOx, CO, SO2 and hydrocarbons as well as dioxins.
Overall studies suggest that for all the above gaseous pollutants,
the environmental burden is significantly less if paper is recycled41.
Sludge derived from de-inked recycled paper manufacture is comparable
to, or less harmful than, municipal wastewater treatment sludges42.
The overall energy consumed in the manufacture of recycled paper is low compared to other paper types at 16.3MJ/kg and represents a calculated energy saving of 28- 70 per cent43compared to virgin pulp and paper manufacture processes. The source of this energy, however, is primarily imported electrical and therefore most commonly derived from non-renewable fossil fuels (unlike virgin chemical pulp production which is often largely energy self- sufficient). Increasing use of incineration/energy recovery for process waste may go some way to redressing the balance but would be of questionable environmental benefit.
Recycled paper production requires approximately 100,000 litres of water to produce 1 tonne of pulp. However with re- circulation and reuse of water during the process, abstraction can be reduced to between 1,000 and 30,000 litres per tonne of pulp44. This compares favourably to virgin pulp production (see section 1.6b).
Much of the research concerning recycled paper takes the form of life cycle studies comparing the environmental impacts of various wastepaper disposal / use scenarios (Recycling vs. Landfill, Recycling vs. Incineration and Landfill vs. Incineration). These studies show inconsistencies and their use presents the following problems:
Despite encountering these problems, in their 'Towards a Sustainable Paper Cycle' study, IIED undertook to try to find general trends in their findings. They concluded as follows:
Most of the studies support the view that recycling and incineration are environmentally preferable to landfill. There is less agreement on whether recycling is preferable to incineration. Critical factors are the nature of the pulp and paper making process, the level of technology at all stages of the life cycle and the energy structure of the countries under study. Interpretation also plays a role in weighing up of increases in some emmissions against reductions in others.45
Friends of the Earth opposes incineration on the grounds that it is wasteful of resources and polluting.
In addition to wood-based fibres, a wide variety of non- wood material is used worldwide in the manufacture of paper. Whilst worldwide production of non-wood pulp is estimated at 5-11 per cent46 of total fibre produced, its use is very regionialised, being concentrated almost exclusively in less developed countries which have few forest resources and whose paper consumption is comparatively low. For example, China produces nearly 90 per cent of its pulp from non- wood sources, India 48 per cent and Thailand 36 per cent47. By contrast, in high consumption developed countries such as the USA and UK, non-wood pulp production is 0.3 per cent48 and 1 per cent49 of total production respectively. However, production in developed nations is estimated to have risen 8.3 per cent annually between 1981 and 1992 whilst falling in less developed countries by 5.3 per cent per annum in the same period50.
The reasons for this large regional difference are complex. Non-wood pulp is generally produced on a small scale, relying on local annual fibre sources, supplying local markets and requiring low capital investment, thus suiting the economic infrastructure of less developed countries. As such, however, they cannot hope to compete with the global operation and huge economies of scale of the large transnational wood pulp producers. Nor can they afford to invest in developing efficient modern production processes and so often rely on outdated machinery designed to pulp wood. Concern about pollution levels has led to the closure of some mills and increasing expansion into new markets by transnational paper producers is taking its toll. China, which produces three-quarters of the world's non-wood fibre, has recently begun shifting towards plantation forestry.
Essentially three categories of plants are used in non-wood fibre production, although in theory almost any fibrous plant can be used.
Straw is by far the most widely used, accounting for 47 per cent of world production, followed by bagasse at 12 per cent and bamboo at 6 per cent (figures are for 1993)52.
Compared with wood, these plants are generally lower in lignin, higher in silica and ash with equivalent cellulose content53. Different plant species produce different pulp types suitable for a variety of products. For example bagasse and straw are used to produce predominantly low grade pulps, whereas hemp, kenaf and flax are often used in higher quality and speciality papers such as banknotes and cigarette papers54.
Needless to say, judgement of the environmental impacts of non-wood and wood fibre crop production is entirely dependent upon the specific management regimes employed by the producer and different fibre crops will place greater or lesser demands on the environment.
At the current time the majority of paper manufactured from non-wood fibres is produced by old technology designed to process wood. This causes a number of problems because of the different physical characteristics of wood and non-wood fibre species.
The complexity of the paper issue means that firm conclusions are hard to draw. All paper manufacture causes harm to the environment and more often than not the determining factors in a paper mill's environmental performance are not the process, paper type or fibre source but the location, mill practice and mill operator. Hence to try to grade paper products or production techniques into some kind of hierarchy of environmental performance, based solely on the manufacture process, is extremely difficult.
Mechanical pulp is arguably the least environmentally damaging virgin wood pulp and it has the advantage of producing a very high pulp yield compared to other processes. Mechanical pulp also causes lower levels of water pollution and uses less water, but has the disadvantages of being a major user of electrical energy and producing generally lower grade pulp. However, newsprint quality, mechanically-pulped paper contains few additives, can be recycled up to 4 times and is adequate for many purposes for which chemically pulped products are currently used.
Chemical pulps can produce very high quality strong products with the potential to be re-used, should this be possible, and recycled many times. They need not be highly polluting but yields, per volume of wood, are low.
Improvements in bleaching technology have had a beneficial effect on effluent quality where they have been introduced. However, a more general approach to improving/reducing effluents, particularly in less developed countries and more comprehensive research is required into the biological impact of pulp mill effluents and closed-loop (effluent-free) technology. The precautionary principle should be applied particularly with regard to organochlorine pollutants.
In environmental terms, whilst recycled fibre pulp does cause some problems, overall the production process is more benign than virgin pulping. The UK as an importer of virgin pulp in large quantities is in a good position in economic terms to expand its recycling industry as an alternative to imported pulp.
Using alternative fibres to reduce pressure on forests, whilst offering the social benefits that a small-scale agricultural-based industry would provide for rural economies, is an attractive idea. Hemp and agricultural residues certainly have great potential as fibre sources in the UK. However, greater investment is needed to develop appropriate technology for their use.
AOX: Absorbable Organic Halogens. This is the most common measure
of the mass of available organic halogens (in this case organochlorines)
in a particular medium. See EOX.
BOD: Biological Oxygen Demand. A measure of the amount of organic
matter requiring oxygen for decomposition used in the context of organic
pollution of water bodies. See COD.
COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand. A measure of the amount of organic
matter requiring oxygen for oxidation similar to BOD. COD is more widely
used as it is a simpler procedure and includes the effects of non-biodegradable
organic matter which can account for up to half the material discharged.
(C)TMP: (Chemo)Thermomechanical Pulping. A variation on the
mechanical pulping process.
ECF: Elemental Chlorine Free. Bleaching process which uses Chlorine
dioxide as opposed to elemental chlorine gas.
EOX: Extractable Organic Halogens. That fraction of AOX (1 to
3 per cent typically) which is likely to bioaccumulate. A further fraction of
this is Extractable Persistent Organic Halogens (EPOX) which measures
bioaccumulative organic halogens which are resistant to sulphuric acid
and thus not likely to degrade.
ISO: The percentage of light reflected back by a given surface.
Used to measure the 'brightness' of paper products.
TCF: Totally Chlorine Free. Bleaching process which uses no
chlorine products.
TOCL: Total Organically-bound Chlorine. A measure of the mass
of organically-bound chlorine compounds present in a given medium. It
has now been largely superseded by AOX, EOX and EPOX.
Tonne/Ton: Imperial tons and metric tonnes are roughly equivalent
and both units are used in this briefing. 1 tonne = 0.9842 tons.
TSS: Total Suspended Solids.
Canning, L., Second Report on Uk Paper Mills, Womens Environment Network
(WEN), 1992
Costello and Link, Report on Uk Paper Mills, WEN, 1990
COWIconsult, The Technical and Economic Aspects of Measures to Reduce
Water Pollution Caused by the Discharges From the Pulp and Paper Industry,
EC Publications, 1989
Dudley, Stolton and Jeanrenaud, Pulp Fact : The Environmental and Social
Impacts of the Pulp and Paper Industry, WWF International, 1995
Harland, T., Recycled Paper and the Environment, Permaculture Magazine
No.8, 1995
IIED, Towards A Sustainable Paper Cycle, Final Report, IIED and WBCSD,
1996
Kerski, A., Pulp, paper and power : how industry reshapes its social environment,
The Ecologist Vol 25 No.4, 1995
Koresa, R., The Greenpeace Guide to Paper, Greenpeace International, 1990
OECD, The Pulp and Paper Industry 1991, OECD Publications, 1994
Ogilvie, S.M. A Review of the Environmental Impact of Recycling, Warren
Spring Laboratory, Recycling Advisory Unit for dti, 1992
Riddlestone,Desai et al, Bioregional Fibres, Bioregional Development
Group, 1994
Virtannen and Nilsson, Environmental Impacts of Waste Paper Recycling,
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Earthscan Publications,
1993
WEN; A Tissue of Lies, WEN, 1990
World Resource Foundation, Warmer Information Sheet, Papermaking and Recycling,
1994
T361 Out of the Woods; Reducing Wood Consumption to Save the World's Forests - A Plan for Action in the UK. 1995.
L389 Out of the Woods; Reducing Wood Consumption to Save the World's Forests. (briefing) April 1995.
G124 Recycling. leaflet. 1992.
G385 Waste. leaflet. 1996.
T246 Don't Throw it all Away. FOE's Guide to Waste Reduction and Recycling. 1992.
T384 Paper, Wood & the World's Forests. 1996.
L293 Timber: The UK Timber Industry's 'Think Wood' and Forests Forever Campaigns. 1993.
T392 The Good Wood Guide (third edition). available from January 1997.
L395 Scandinavian Forests and Forest Product Companies, November 1996.
To order any of these publications please contact; Publications Despatch, Friends of the Earth, 56-58 Alma Street, Luton LU1 2PH Tel: 01582 482297. Please send payment with order. Postage & packing is free.
Alan Stanley
October 1996
Published by Friends of the Earth Ltd
© Friends of the Earth Ltd
Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland
26-28 Underwood Street
London N1 7JQ
Telephone 020 7490 1555,
Email: info@foe.co.uk
return to text
1. Pulp and Paper International Annual review
1995, July 1996, p.37
return to text
2. The Greenpeace Guide to Paper, 1990
return to text
3. The Greenpeace Guide to Paper, 1990
return to text
4. Pulp and Paper International Annual Review
1995, July 1996, p.37
return to text
5. Pulp and Paper International Annual Review
1995, July 1996, p.37
return to text
6. Environmental Guidelines for Pulp and
Paper Industry, UNEP, 1982
return to text
7. Figures converted from sections 1.6b.
and 2.2e of this briefing.
return to text
8. The Technical and Economic Aspects of Measures
to Reduce Water Pollution Caused by the Discharges From the Pulp and
Paper Industry, COWIconsult, 1989, P.49.
return to text
9. Figures converted from sections A5e. and
B2e. of this briefing.
return to text
10. The Greenpeace Guide to Paper, 1990
return to text
11. The Greenpeace Guide to Paper, 1990
return to text
12. Pulp and Paper International, March 1992,
p.50
return to text
13. Canadian Market Pulp, Sept 1995
return to text
14. The Greenpeace Guide to Paper, 1990
return to text
15. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)
Forest Products Yearbook 1991
return to text
16. Rice, T.(ed), Out of the Woods, Friends
of the Earth, 1995
return to text
17. Phase 1 Review Report, The Sustainable
Paper Cycle, International Institute for Environment and Development
(IIED), 1995, p.C36
return to text
18. The Technical and Economic Aspects of
Measures to Reduce Water Pollution Caused by the Discharges from the
Pulp and Paper Industry, Final Report, Commission of the European Communities,
November 1989, p.66
return to text
19. Pulp Fact, WWF, 1995, p.
return to text
20. The Technical and Economic Aspects of
Measures to Reduce Water Pollution Caused by the Discharges from the
Pulp and Paper Industry, Final Report, Commission of the European Communities,
November 1989, p.68
return to text
21. The Technical and Economic Aspects of
Measures to Reduce Water Pollution Caused by the Discharges From the
Pulp and Paper Industry, Final Report, Commission of European Communities,
November 1989, P.70
return to text
22. The Technical and Economic Aspects of
Measures to Reduce Water Pollution Caused by the Discharges from the
Pulp and Paper Industry, Final Report, Commission of the European Communities,
November 1989, p.75
return to text
23.Carry et al, Recent Studies on the Physiological Effects of Pulp
Mill Effluents on Fish, National Water Research
Institute, Canada, 1993 cited in Review Draft,
Towards a Sustainable Paper Cycle, IIED, 1996,
p. 108-109 (unpublished)
return to text
24. Goodson and Widen, The White Book on White
Paper, Eka Nobel, 1994, p.50
return to text
25. Towards a Sustainable Paper Cycle, IIED,
1996, p.246
return to text
26. IIED, Towards a Sustainable Paper Cycle,
1996, p.118
return to text
27. Pulp Fact, WWF, 1995, p.19,20
return to text
28. The Technical and economic aspects of
measures to reduce water pollution caused by the discharges from the
pulp and paper industry, COWIprospect, 1989, p.82,83.
return to text
29. Greenpeace Guide to Paper, 1990, p.7
return to text
30. Greenpeace Guide to Paper, 1990, p.22
return to text
31. Greenpeace Guide to Paper, 1990
return to text
32. Pulp Fact, WWF, 1995, p.30
return to text
33. Warmer Information Sheet, Paper Making
and Recycling
return to text
34. Pulp and Paper International, March 1994
return to text
35. Department of the Environment, Making
Waste Work, 1995
return to text
36. Phase 1 Review Report, IIED, 1995, p.C56
S. M. Ogilvie, A Review of the Environmental
Impacts of Recycling, Warren Spring, 1992, p.60
Virtanen and Nilsson, The Environmental Impacts
of Waste Paper Recycling, Earthscan, 1993, p.28
return to text
37. S. M. Ogilvie, A Review of the Environmental
Impacts of Recycling, Warren Spring, 1992, p.60
Virtanen and Nilsson, the environmental impacts
of waste paper recycling, Earthscan, 1993, p.28
return to text
38. Virtanen and Nilsson, Environmental Impacts
of Waste Paper Recycling, Earthscan, 1993, p.64
return to text
39. S. M. Ogilvie, A Review of the Environmental
Impacts of Recycling, Warren Spring, 1992, p. 62
return to text
40. NCASI, Characterisation of Wastes and
Emmissions from Mills using Recycled Fibre, Technical Bulletin no. 613,
National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement,
1991. cited in Phase 1 Review Report, Towards a Sustainable Paper Cycle,
IIED, 1995, p. C58 (unpublished)
return to text
41. S. M. Ogilvie, A Review of the Environmental
Impacts of Recycling, Warren Spring, 1993, p.61
return to text
42. NCASI(1991) quoted in IIED Phase 1 Review
Draft, p. C59
return to text
43. S. M. Ogilvie, A Review of the Environmental
Impacts of Recycling, Warren Spring, 1993,p.61
return to text
44. S. M. Ogilvie, A Review of the Environmental
Impacts of Recycling, Warren Spring, 1993,p.61
return to text
45. IIED, Towards a Sustainable Paper Cycle,
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD),1996, p.186
return to text
46. IIED, Towards a Sustainable Paper Cycle,
WBCSD, 1996, p.72
return to text
47. Hagler , Fibre Sourcing Analysis for the
Global Pulp and Paper Industry, 1995 cited in
Roberts, S., Non-wood Fibre Substudy, FirstDraft,
IIED, 1995, p. 3 (unpublished)
return to text
48. Hagler , Fibre Sourcing Analysis for the
Global Pulp and Paper Industry, 1995 cited
in Roberts, S., Non-wood Fibre Substudy, FirstDraft,
IIED, 1995, p. 3 (unpublished)
return to text
49. Riddlestone and Desai, Bioregional Fibres,
Bioregional Development Group, 1994, p. 32
return to text
50. Assumpcao, undated, Issues and Problems in Paper Production.
UNIDO, (Unreleased) cited in Roberts, S., Non-wood
Fibre Substudy, First Draft, IIED, 1995, p.
2 (unpublished)
return to text
51. IIED, Towards a Sustainable Paper Cycle,
WBCSD, 1996, p.72
return to text
52. IIED, Towards a Sustainable Paper Cycle, WBCSD, 1996, p.72
return to text
53. Riddlestone and Desai, Bioregional Fibres,
Bioregional Development Group, 1994, p. 65
return to text
54. Riddlestone and Desai, Bioregional Fibres,
Bioregional Development Group, 1994, p. 78
return to text
55. IIED, Towards a Sustainable Paper Cycle,
WBCSD,1996, p.75
return to text
56. IIED, Towards a Sustainable Paper Cycle,
WBCSD,1996, p.76
return to text
57. Interview with Hemcore 18/4/96
Riddlestone and Desai, Bioregional Fibres, Bioregional
Development Group, 1994, Appendix A
return to text
58. Riddlestone and Desai, Bioregional Fibres,
Bioregional Development Group, 1994, Appendix A
return to text
59. Scott and Taylor, Paper Presented to the
National Synopsium on New Crops, 1988 cited in Roberts, S., Non-wood
Fibre Substudy, First Draft, IIED, 1995, p.28 (unpublished)
return to text
60. Riddlestone and Desai, Bioregional Fibres,
Bioregional Development Group, 1994, p.73
return to text
61. Lahaussois and Kyrklund, An Economic Review
of the Use of Kenaf for Pulp and Paper, 1988, presented to the International
Non Wood Fibre pulping and Paper making Conference, Beijing 1988 cited
in Roberts, S., Non-wood Fibre Substudy, First Draft, IIED, 1995, p.29
(unpublished)
Riddlestone and Desai, Bioregional Fibres, Bioregional
Development Group, 1994, p.76
Contact details:
Friends of the Earth
26-28 Underwood St.
LONDON
N1 7JQ
Tel: 020 7490 1555
Fax: 020 7490 0881
Email: info@foe.co.uk
Website: www.foe.co.uk
October 1996
Alan Stanley
Last modified: December 2001