c

  


  



Paper was invented about 2000 years ago in China which thereafter spread to various parts of the world.
The paper is manufactures from pulp which has large size straws. But when the recycled paper is used in
manufacturing of paper these fibers gets shorter and shorter and it becomes unviable after six to seven
stages of recycling to produce paper.

LCA Life Cycle Assesement carried out in the paper manufacturing process reveals some strange
outcomes like Recycling Paper can help reduce GHGs(Green House Gases) as the Landfill by paper
decreases also the wood required for the is drastically reduced. Every ton of Recycled paper saves 17
trees and 7000 gallons of water. LCA identifies at each and every step the harm done to the Environment
by the Paper Manufacturing process(right from procuring of wood and to the delivery of paper) and tries
to find Sustainable practices that can be taken at each and every step. This practice can certainly bring
about in sight the loopholes that are involved in creating pollution.

Recycled paper production has been criticized for as the Recycled paper production uses a lot of Energy
as processing of short fibers is difficult and energy consuming, the pollution caused by vehicles to
transport paper to factory. However it has been put forward that the Energy saved by the Recycled paper
viv a vis the Virgin paper production far outweighs the Extra Energy Consumed by Recycle paper
comparatively.

The Printing ink first has to be removed from recycled paper which produces effluents containing higher
levels of suspended solids (TSS) and Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) than effluent produced from
virgin pulp . However, chemical oxygen demand (COD) and the level of chlorinated organic compounds
is lower in the effluent from recycled pulp. These Effluents can be treated by clarification and activated
sludge and/or anaerobic processes to control BOD and COD andY
YYYY Y

Y

 Y


Y
YYY
YY  Y Y

Y
Y YY
Y
Y
Y
Y Y Y Y Y YY YY Y
YY
 Y
Y 
Y  YY

YYY Y

 Y


Y Y Y  YYY  Y Y 

 YYY Y
Y YY

In the past, heavy metals (from printing inks) in recycling mill effluents have been a cause for concern.
Metals such as copper, chromium, lead, zinc, nickel and cadmium have been 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 also occur in re-pulped effluents, although little is known about their
precise source. However, the toxicity of heavy metals and organic compounds, such as dioxins, in
effluents and sludges is a matter of debate within the industry. One study suggests that much of the
published data on pollution from heavy metals and organic chemicals from recycling mills are already
outdated .The levels of these materials in recovered paper, and therefore in recycling mill wastes, have
dropped dramatically in recent years as a result of similarly dramatic reductions in the levels of these
materials in inks and pigments.

In the past there has been few research studies on predicting the Air Emissions arising from the Recyled
paper Production. But recent evidences have suggested that the Direct emissions from the process of
making recycled paper itself are minimal and considered to be relatively insignificant.Most of the Air
Emissions generally comes from the incineration of de-inking sludges and fuel combustion during the
production process. Typical emissions from incineration of sludge and fuel combustion include methane
(CH4) ; sulphur dioxide (SO2); nitrogen dioxide (NOx); carbon monoxide (CO); carbon dioxide (CO2).

As far as Solid wastes are concerned the Recycled paper Production produces a sludge that contains 30-
50% solids made up of short fibres, fillers and ink from the de-inking process. The amount of waste is
dependent on paper source and product type. Traditionally, this waste has been consigned to landfill.
However, incineration is becoming increasingly popular. This too produces solid waste as ash which then
goes to landfill. Other disposal options include composting and techniques to remove clay and other
fillers for reuse. However, these are still only at the early stages of development and have yet to be
proved.

De-inking sludges may contain low concentrations of heavy metals - cadmium, lead, chromium and
nickel. Heavy metal contamination is of concern with respect to direct landfill, incinerator ash disposal
and composting while incineration produces emissions of CO2, NOx, CO and SO2, hydrocarbon and
dioxins. However, as noted above, the toxicity of the sludge is a matter of debate within the industry.
Comparisons with sludge from the public sewer have shown levels of heavy metals to be lower in de-
inking sludge.

The volume of waste is no more than that created in mechanical pulping of roundwood (which produces
bark and rejects) and much less than from chemical pulping (which produces bark rejects, spent liquor,
sludges, and requires effluent treatment) . But because of the heterogeneous composition of sludges from
recycled pulp, and rejects such as staples and glue, disposal is difficult. Cleaner raw materials, processes
and products are still needed.

AN Important Question arises from the above discussion is Whether to Recycle or Incinerate the paper
waste from the production. To inform decisions on how to dispose of solid waste, such as paper, a
hierarchy of disposal options is used. Options are ranked from those with the most environmental benefits
to those with the least, as follows: source reduction, including backyard composting; recycling including
centralized composting, incineration and landfill.

This hierarchy would seem to suggest that recycling paper has more environmental benefits than
incineration or landfill. Indeed two recent studies from Coopers & Lybrand/CSERGE and the U.S.
Environment Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) support this view .

The U.S. EPA study concludes that the solid waste management hierarchy described above is also
generally valid from a greenhouse gas perspective i.e. recycling produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions
than incineration and landfill.

Despite the waste management hierarchy, and the most recent European waste strategy, which assumes
that in general recycling is preferable to incineration in energy terms, there is growing interest in
developing incineration with energy recovery capabilities to provide a combination of recycling and
incineration.

However, public opposition to incineration has discouraged local authorities from providing planning
permission for new incinerators. Friends of the Earth opposes incineration on the grounds that it wastes
valuable resources and represents a barrier to increased recycling and that it causes air pollution and
creates a toxic ash.

Incineration represents a barrier to increased recycling. Building an incinerator has such high capital costs
that a constant supply of waste must be ensured for a given time period to recoup costs. Incinerator
operators typically require contracts with local authorities to supply them with a minimum amount of
waste to burn over a long time - 25 to 30 years. This will encourage waste

 rather
than 
. In some cases, if the local authority does not supply the full amount of waste required, it
has to pay the incinerator operator to compensate for the profit shortfall. This assurance of return on
investment is a logical requirement from the incinerator operators' point of view, but once incineration is
established as an area's mode of waste management, it hampers waste reduction and recycling measures.
The incentive on the local authority will be to ensure   waste is produced, not to ensure that it's
reduced.

Doubtless recycling plants cause disamenity problems such as increased local traffic and litter. However,
an incinerator too creates a visual eyesore, increased traffic (waste trucks and staff cars), and fails to
provide community benefits in terms of public education and local involvement in solving waste disposal
problems.

 
 

Much of the research concerning the preferred end use of paper takes the form of life cycle studies which
compare the environmental impacts of various wastepaper disposal/use scenarios. A number of life cycle
analyses (LCAs) have been published comparing the environmental impact of waste paper recycling and
incineration. Of these, some conclude that under certain conditions paper recycling has less
environmental impact than incineration . Others conclude the opposite.

In 1996 the International Institute for Environment and Development produced its report ³Towards a
Sustainable Paper Cycle´ which presented the results from a number of LCAs. In most cases a recycling
scenario resulted in lower total energy use. As discussed above (under the section on energy) the energy
used was predominantly obtained from fossil fuels.

In general, the release of net CO2 equivalents was higher in the recycled scenarios compared to the
incineration scenarios. This is because incineration can be used to produce energy and thus offset a given
amount of fossil fuel use and CO2 production. However, the more recent study from the US
Environmental Protection Agency, noted above, shows recycling produces less CO2 equivalents than
incineration.

For air and water emissions no clear picture emerged. The two studies that favoured recycling did so on
the basis of changes in air and water pollution releases. Those that favoured incineration based their
argument on reductions in CO2 equivalents.

The IIED study concluded that:

 YY Y 
Y

 Y Y
Y  Y
 YY


YY
 Y

Y Y

YY
YY  YY Y
 Y
Y
Y Y


Y!

Y YY
Y YY Y

YY

Y
 Y
Y YYY  Y YY  YY Y
YYY
Y Y  YY Y 
YY Y" 
 
YY
YYY
Y

 Y
YY

Y
YY

Y 
 Y
Y
Y 

This all reflects that life cycle analyses have a number of drawbacks, key ones being that they may be
over-simplified or do not use adequate data. Concern has been raised that it may be premature to use LCA
for evaluation of alternative waste management options since LCA originated as a way of evaluating the
impact of a particular product over its lifecycle rather than a management system such as waste disposal .

The results of LCAs are influenced by the assumptions made and the boundaries adopted. Most of the
LCA studies in the IIED report, for example, failed to incorporate data on forest management illustrating
that the entire life-cycle had not been accounted for.
Few LCAs consider resource use as well as effluents and emissions. For example, production of recycled
paper uses less raw materials for pulp and paper production, uses less wood and should result in less
intensive forest management. This has important implications for conserving biodiversity.

If there is less need for intensive forest management this should take the pressure off old growth forest as
existing commercial plantations should be able to meet demand. Yet currently old growth forest is still
being cleared in many countries of the world. In the process complex forest ecosystems are destroyed.

Forest land cleared for timber is re-planted for commercial forestry and one of the forest industry's well-
worn arguments is that they save trees, rather than destroy them, because for every tree cut down, two or
three are planted. However, an intensively managed plantation, little more than an agricultural crop, is not
the same thing as an old growth forest rich in biodiversity. A true forest is more than just trees. It is a
intricate system comprising a wide variety of species and complex relations between them.
Logging Y Y 
Y Y
  and with overplanting of one or two species of tree there
will be fewer habitats than an old growth forest of mixed tree species of uneven age and height. Fewer
habitats means less opportunities for species to establish themselves. Consequently, a commercial
plantation forest will support fewer species than old growth forest.

Äcccc

One of the key barriers to increased recycling in is that pulp and paper tends not to be produced near
centres of paper consumption . Paper mills are located near timber sources such as Scandinavian forests
while most paper is consumed in cities. The vast supply of recyclable paper produced in our cities,
particularly office paper, represents a considerable untapped resource and has been coined the ³urban
forest´. The developed countries like UK could produce much more of its own paper, and thus rely less
on imports, if more paper were recovered and recycled. However, a number of barriers to increasing
recycling exist:

`Y lack of markets for collected materials

`Y lack of funding for recycling
`Y poor participation by residents in materials collection
`Y level of support required from the local authority
`Y possibility of increases in the level of transport in a District
`Y lack of appropriate sites, land or buildings.

 
 
  

Legislative changes would help to address these market barriers. Possible changes include putting a tax on
virgin pulp, raising recycling targets, making provision of recycling facilities for local authorities
compulsory, and ensuring that companies use certain percentages of recycled products for packaging,
office paper and newsprint.

This excess of waste paper is driving support for expansion of waste-to-energy schemes (incineration with
energy recovery) but demand for recycled paper in the India could increase if more of the paper used in
the India were to be made in the India . For example,
YY Y

 Y Y
YY
Y
YY
YY Y YYY YYY#

$
 Y%&Y

Y
'Y

Y

Y(
 Y Y
Y
Y Y
Y

YY)YYY
(
´.
The development of an efficient collection system for waste paper in many countries is constrained by
these cyclical surges in wastepaper consumption and paper pricing. Over- collection can destabilise
markets and established collection systems may be disrupted, especially if there is a lack of demand and
processing capacity. Increasingly, to ensure demand for recycled paper, councils are securing contracts
directly with paper mills to avoid the impacts of price fluctuations. To ensure demand major investment is
needed in recycled paper mills.

 





Market research has shown that although there is a strong community awareness of the importance of
recycling, this is not translated into action. A consumer survey carried out for the some paper recycling
mill can reflect some Interesting trends that is what is the awareness level of Consumers regarding
Recycling of paper and how it helps to create Sustainable Environment. Local Communities can
participate in such Action as Recycling of paper if they are made aware of the concept through various
Seminars and other public functions. For instance ITC Paperboards and Specialty Papers Division
launched the waste paper collection programme called Wealth Out of Waste (WOW) last year in select
areas in Hyderabad, Bangalore and Coimbatore and is now expanding it to more areas in South India,
including Chennai. In Chennai, it has tied up with 30-40 IT companies including Infosys, IBM, Wipro
which would sell their waste paper to ITC for recycling. It also plans to tie up with Residential Welfare
Associations (RWAs), NGOs and local bodies to expand the waste paper collection programme.



 
  



 
 


About 20-25% of paper cannot be recycled e.g. archive papers, and for hygienic reasons, tissue paper,
sanitary products and food parchment papers. In addition, some technical limitations exist. Paper fibres,
for example, degenerate each time they are used so there will always be some which cannot be used again
and will require disposal.

Fibre can be recycled up to six times but each time that it is recycled it loses some of its essential
properties, notably fibre length. Additives and contaminants also affect paper quality. Whilst not affecting
basic fibre strength they can interfere with bonding and impact sheet strength.

The decline in quality of fibre with recycling depends on its type and processing, both in initial
papermaking and recycling. In mechanical pulping, wood fibres are separated from each other physically
and this results in severe fibre shortening. In contrast, chemical pulping dissolves the binding lignin so
there may be little reduction in fibre length. The cell walls remain largely intact in mechanical pulping
while in chemical pulping a very open and porous network of cellulose fibrils is produced. These
differences affect the water retention properties of the fibres. Water uptake and thus swelling, an
important factor in the development of paper strength, is greater in chemical fibres than mechanical. The
chemical fibres undergo irreversible collapse when dried and this results in a reduction in bonding ability
with recycling. Mechanical fibres, in contrast, do not collapse on drying and so their bonding potential is
not greatly affected by recycling.

One study predicts only modest strength losses for newsprint even at recycling levels of 80% and claims
that the


YY Y YYY
Y
 Y

Y YYY

 Y
Y

Y

 Y*Y  YY
Y Y
YY+
 +YY
YY  Y .

Magazine strength losses in comparison are more severe since the recycled fraction contains weaker
newsprint fibres. Despite these impacts it is thought that, rather than strength loss, those factors more
likely to inhibit maximum recycling include de- inking efficiency, residual filler material, the availability
of suitable sources of wastepaper, age, capabilities and operation of papermaking equipment.


 
  




In addition to the environmental benefits of recycling waste paper it makes economic sense to recycle
paper:

,
YY-./Y

Y YY
Y Y01Y
Y2334 Y(YY Y
 YY
 Y

YYY
Y
YYY Y

 Y

Y YY 

Y

YY5&446 Y Y
 Y
YYY52444Y

Y
Y Y Y01Y"
 Y
YY$ Y
Y
YYY(
Y
Y Y$ Y 

Y

YYY 
Y

YYY

 Y
Y YYY
 YYY


YY Y$ Y Y

Y YYYYY(
 Y Y

 Y Y574.4Y

Y YYY
 At 1990 oil prices of £10.60-11.80 per barrel.

 
 !
 
  

 "
 
#

These calculations relate to 1990. In 1996 4,323,000 tonnes of wastepaper were consumed in the UK. If,
instead, virgin pulp had been imported, almost £1.6 billion would have been added to the UK import bill.

The recent report from Coopers & Lybrand and CSERGE gives further support to the economic benefits
that paper recycling can provide. And by actively promoting a UK paper recycling industry, jobs will be
created in collection schemes, sorting plants, recycled paper mills, and the design, marketing, advertising
and distribution of recycled paper products.

c$%&c

Global recovery of waste paper in 1995 was about 110 million tons which still leaves about 170 million
tons which were not recovered . There is a need to increase the amount of wastepaper recovered from.

In India only about 20% waste paper is being currently recovered annually. Low recovery is on account of
alternate use of paper in wrapping, packing, etc. In comparison in developed countries the percentage of
recovery of waste paper is very high. For instance in Germany it is 73%, Sweden 69%, Japan 60%,
Western Europe 56%, USA 49% and Italy 45 %.

c'"c"c$

This briefing has focussed on waste paper recycling. However, while encouraging recycling, the emphasis
must be on reducing paper consumption.

Reducing the  

of paperused,through changes such as introducing electronic mail to office
systems and printing on both sides of paper, should provide more environmental benefits in terms of
reducing resource use, waste production and associated pollutants. One newspaper recently reported new
technology which could lead to reduced paper use. Apparently a certain kind of ink has been developed
that can be turned clear by a specially designed laser printer. A sheet of paper that has been printed is
made blank so that it can be reused.

(%"(%
There are clear benefits to paper recycling such as relieving pressure on forest resources and reducing the
amount of waste going to landfill. Despite this the product and the process have been criticised. This
briefing shows that those arguments put forward against recycling are not sufficiently robust as to
discourage recycling.

Recycling of paper uses considerably less total energy than the production of virgin paper. However,
there is a greater dependency on fossil fuels in recycling processes. Consequently, recycling must be
encouraged along side clean energy production from renewable sources such as solar and wind energy.
For most transport modes, the energy costs between different transport scenarios of virgin paper and
recycled paper are insignificant in comparison to the energy savings arising from the recycled paper
production process.

Overall, studies suggest that for pollutants, the environmental burden is less if paper is recycled. There are
small increases in BOD and suspended solids but technology is available to reduce these pollutants from
the effluent stream. While heavy metals in the sludge have been of concern, the levels of these
contaminants are thought to have declined in line with a reduction in their use in inks and pigments.

Clearly, the argument of which process offers the most environmental benefits in terms of CO2 reduction
- recycling or incineration with energy recovery - has not been resolved. However, recent life cycle
studies tend to favour recycling over incineration.

Paper recycling leads to savings in the use of raw materials for pulp and paper production and less wood
is used. This should result in less intensive forest management and take the

pressure off exploitation of old growth forests, vitally important for their biodiversity.

The market demand for waste paper will only increase if new processing capacity is developed. To ensure
supplythere should be a statutory requirement on local authorities to devise and implement ambitious
recycling plans. Minimum targets for recovery levels should be set to ensure supply and demand. Both
jobs and the economy would benefit from increased paper recycling.

Not only should paper recycling be more actively promoted but this must be carried out in concert with
reduction of paper use.

In a recent report, Central Pulp & Paper Research Institute (CPPRI) has stated that by 2010 about half of
the global amount of fibers used in papermaking will be recycled fibers. However the report admits that
recycled fibre sourcing in India is a challenge. Import of waste paper has increased significantly during
1995-2003 onwards since Industry¶s dependence is increasing on imported RCP due to inconsistent
supply of indigenous RCP and the recovery of indigenous RCP being low due to unorganized collection
system IPMA feels paper recycling, in the overall contest of waste management, needs to be looked at as
an enterprise. Since recovered paper has potential to substitute a high-cost and inadequate primary raw
material, due recognition should be given by the industry as well as the government to this essential
secondary raw material.
References:

BloemhofÑRuwaard, J. v. (1996). An Environmental Life Cycle Optimization Model for the

European Pulp and Paper Industry. v YY" YY8YY  YY9
 , 24(6), 615Ñ629.

http://www.ipma.co.in/recycle.asp

[1] Pulp and Paper International (1997). Annual Review, July 1997.
[2] Taiga Rescue Network (1997). The 3rd Taiga Rescue Network Conference in Kuusamo, Finland,
October 24-29, 1996. Finnish Nature League, Helsinki.
[3] The Paper Federation of Great Britain pers. comm.
[4] Collins, L. (1996). Recycling and the environmental debate: a question of social conscience or
scientific reason? 8YY:
 Y
 YY   , 39(3), 335-355