Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

A feasibility study on the life cycle of 30% and 100% post consumer waste and virgin paper Tai, Angie; Borromeo, Charles; Tsoi, Opttie 2008-04-18

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


18861-Tai_A_et_al_SEEDS_2008.pdf [ 369.79kB ]
JSON: 18861-1.0077987.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0077987-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0077987-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0077987-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0077987-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0077987-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0077987-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

A Feasibility Study on the Life Cycle of 30% and 100% Post Consumer Waste and Virgin Paper  Source: Paper Task Force < >  Conducted by:  _________ Angie Tai  ____________  _________  Charles Borromeo  Opttie Tsoi  The University of British Columbia Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering Course: CHBE 484 – Green Engineering Project Type: SEEDS Project Date of Completion: April 18, 2008  CHBE 484 Life Cycle Analyses of 30%, 100% Post Consumer Waste and Virgin Paper Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering University of British Columbia 2360 East Mall Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z3 April 18, 2008 ATTN: Ms. Brenda Sawada, Ms. Victoria Wakefield, Dr. Xi Tony Bi Dear Ms. Brenda Sawada, Ms. Victoria Wakefield, Dr. Xi Tony Bi: RE: A Feasibility Study on the Life Cycle Analyses of 30%, 100% Post Consumer Waste and Virgin Paper Paper is a universal tool used everywhere around the world and its demand continues to increase tremendously year after year. Due to these increases, environmental impacts are becoming a major issue. Thus, through conducting life cycle assessments we hope to identify the origins linked to these concerns and solutions to reduce or eliminate the impacts. The purpose of this report is to conduct a feasibility study by comparing the life cycle analyses between 30% post consumer waste, 100% post consumer waste and virgin paper. In regards to our Green Engineering Course, this paper will provide a life cycle assessment focused mainly on manufacturing in terms resource consumption, waste, emissions and economics. The project timeline was from March 14 to April 18, 2008. We are confident this report will meet your expectations. If you have any question or concerns regarding this paper, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely,  Angie Tai, Charles Borromeo, Opttie Tsoi CHBE 484 Life Cycle Analyses of 30%, 100% Post Consumer Waste and Virgin Paper 1  Tables Of Contents List Of Figures and Tables 1.0 Scope This paper compares the feasibility and life cycle assessment for 30% post consumer waste paper, 100% post consumer waste paper and virgin paper. The scope of this project only focuses on the life cycle within the manufacturing process. It is assumed that for raw material acquisition and production shipping will ultimately be identical in for all three paper cases and will not play a significant role in this study.  2  2.0 Introduction  3.0 Background Paper has been used as far back as the Egyptian times. It has been used over the centuries as the carrier of knowledge. Today, paper is still in use and our consumption has doubled since the 1960s (“A New Way to Buy Paper”). The production of pulp and paper is considered to be one of the world’s largest industries.  Figure 1: Global Paper Production Source: Olsen, James. "Introduction to Mechanical Pulping and Papermaking." Lecture Notes. UBC. 12 Apr 2008 <>.  3  With increasing paper demand and consumption, environmental concerns over the lifecycle of paper has arisen. As with any other production processes, paper making utilizes energy, consumes natural resources, and produces various emissions (i.e. air emissions, wastewater, and solid wastes). In an effort to reduce the environmental impact of paper production, various means have been employed such as the development of cleaners and more efficient technologies; this includes process optimization, and fiber recycling. Recycling of fiber is mainly classified into three: internal mill waste, pre-consumer waste, and post-consumer waste. Internal mill waste mainly utilizes substandard or defective paper products made within the paper mill and reintroducing them back into the manufacturing system. Pre-consumer waste mainly consists of processing waste, which is generated outside the pulp mill and is recycled before it is used by a consumer (“Pre-consumer Waste”). Postconsumer waste (PCW) is fiber from used paper which includes newsprint, paper from office waste, and magazine papers, to name a few (“Paper Terminology”). This paper will only deal with the post consumer waste content in paper and virgin paper.  4  4.0 Raw Materials  The main raw material of paper is pulp fibers which basically come from wood. Other sources of fiber include internal mill waste, preconsumer waste, and post-consumer waste.  Virgin paper, or 0%PCW paper, mainly uses wood as a source of fiber. A ton of paper, consisting of around 200,000 sheets, typically requires about 24 trees1 (Paper Task Force). 30% post-consumer waste paper uses approximately 17 trees and 100% post-consumer waste paper doesn’t use any trees.  1  Uncoated virgin printing and office paper basis  5  5.0 Paper Manufacturing2 There are two paper production techniques used widely in industry: mechanical and chemical. In our life cycle analysis, the type of paper production that would be used is chemical, which is required to make regular copy/printing paper.  The production of paper is generally comprised of 5 steps. These steps include: debarking, chipping, pulping, bleaching, and the paper machine.  5.1  Debarking The purpose of this stage is for decomposing the bark into  fine fiber. The debarking step mainly removes the bark from the tree. A drum debarker, a large spinning and rotating drum, is usually used to carry out this process. As the drum spins, the logs rub against each other and, as a result, remove the bark. Therefore, since virgin paper utilizes more wood in comparison to PCW paper, the energy utilized is highest for virgin paper because it has a higher loading of wood. For 30%PCW paper, the energy used would be less than that of virgin paper and 100%PCW paper will rank superior at this stage since it does not require any wood from trees. Similarly if “wet oxidation debarking” (Kindsigo et al) was used at this stage, the degree of water 2  Paper production process is based off CHBE 401 Pulp and Paper course notes  6  consumed will follow a similar trend, with 100%PCW ranking superior. Furthermore, 100% recycle paper also proves to be more feasible since it will not require the purchasing of debarking equipments and will not have any emissions. 5.2  Chipping  In this step, the debarked logs are cut into small chips. Chippers, as they are usually called, use large rotating knives to cut the logs down into chips. This step is only required if debarking occurs. Thus, 100%PCW will again be most preferable at this stage of analysis since it does not require this step.  5.3  Pulping Pulping is the process where separation between the lignin  from the cellulose3 and hemi-cellulose4, contributes to 40%-45% of the wood weight. This process also removes the “tree oils and resins” from the wood ("Fact files: The pulping process | Pro Carton Design."). There are two main pulping processes: chemical and mechanical pulping.  3.3.1 Chemical or Kraft Pulping  3 4  From Webster’s dictionary: polysaccharides that are found in plant wall cells From Webster’s dictionary: similar to cellulose but possesses a less complex structure  7  This type of pulping produces long pulp fiber lengths, which improves paper quality. In this process, the wood chips are “cooked” in a solution of sodium hydroxide and sodium sulphide. This process is highly efficient in removing lignins and resins in softwoods. More than 95% of the chemicals used for pulping are recovered for re-use.  In spite of the process’ high chemical recovery and efficiency in producing high quality pulp, the release of hydrogen sulphide and mercaptan family of sulphides can cause the smell of rotten eggs. Hydrogen sulphide is highly toxic and may be fatal since it will cause asphyxiate and mercaptan may cause “anemia and coma” (“Chemical Sampling Information: Methyl Mercaptan”). In addition, cellulose fibres that are lost during the chemical pulping can be discharged with the wastewater and may cause a build up of fiber beds around wastewater pipes. This fiber build up may cause environmental problems.  Overall, this manufacturing step will be required for all three types of paper, and the amount of chemical solutions utilized at this step will be the same.  3.3.2 Mechanical Pulping  8  In mechanical pulping is a process that forces debarked logs against a grinding stone or a metal disk to produce pulp. This process usually produces a higher percentage of usable pulp but the pulp quality is considerably lower compared to the pulp produced from the Kraft process. As a result, paper produced from mechanical pulping is lower compared to chemical pulping. Up to 95% of the wood is converted into usable pulp, as compared to around 40% to 50% for the Kraft process. Paper produced from the process is used mainly for newsprint, telephone books, and etc.  5.4  Bleaching  Bleaching is considered to be one of the most important steps. This step is used to purify and clean up the pulp by removing the lignin which affects fiber purity. Chemical pulp mills typically use chlorine gas and chlorine dioxide as bleaching agents. These chemicals are highly toxic and pose a severe health risk by acting as a mutagen, carcinogen and may be fatal ("Treecycle Recycled Paper: About Recycling and Recycled Paper."). On the other hand, mechanical pulp mills use peroxide. There is paper process that excludes this stage which aids in reducing the “organochlorine compounds to the sludge” (UBC Sustainability Office). 9  This part of the process is only required for the paper types that have wood content, which are 30%PCW and virgin paper. Therefore, the most preferable paper choice is 100%PCW since it does not require such a step, does not has one fewer step that would contribute to cost, emissions, water and energy consumptions.  Figure 3: Pulp Bleaching Source: Lee, Quak Foo. "Pulp Production and Paper Making." Advance Chemical Technology Center. Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering. 12 Apr 2008 <>.  10  5.5  Paper Machine The paper machine primarily consists of four sections: stock  preparation, press section, dryer section, and after-dryer section/rolling. This stage in the process will be required equally among by all three paper types.  3.5.1 Stock Preparation In this section, the wood fiber mixed with water and minerals. The water is drained out and a web of paper is formed. 3.5.2 Press Section  This section is a primary drying step. The paper web is squeezed between rollers. After this section, the water content of the paper is typically around 40% to 50%.  3.5.3 Dryer Section  Further removal of water is achieved in this section. A water content of around 2% to 6% is typical after this section. 3.5.4 After-dryer Section/Rolling In this section, further drying is done and the paper is wound up into a giant roll.  11  Based on superiority of each paper type on the step stages in the process provided above, three being most preferable to one being least, the results indicate 100% being most economical in terms of manufacturing since it requires less stages, less maintenance and so less potential sources of emission sources. The results are summarized below in Table 2. Table 1: Manufacturing Ranking Rank  Virgin  30% PCW  100% PCW  Debarking  1  2  3  Chipping  1  2  3  Chemical Pulping  1  1  1  Bleaching/De-inking  3  2  1  Paper Machine  1  1  1  Total  7  8  9  It is important to note that this rank does not include the actual emission amounts per stage or energy consumption. Both these factors will be assessed in the subsequent sections.  12  6.0 Resource Consumption In this section of the life cycle analysis, the energy and water consumption and emissions released are defined and assessed. Minimal information was attained on water consumption and its dependency at various recycles rates, and so only 30%PCW paper’s water usage will be discussed in this section with total water consumption comparisons conducted in section 5.0 Environmental Impacts. It was found that both the energy consumed and emission amounts vary tremendously at different operating conditions; mainly the recycling rates. The trends were adapted from a study done by Paper Task Force (“White Paper No. 10A”) using 1 ton of air dried paper as the basis. 6.1  Energy  The total amount energy required to produce a ton of air dried paper decreases with increasing recycling rates. Table 2, shown below, shows a summary of the energy requirements for the different types of paper.  Table 2. Energy Requirements for Different Paper Types  Virgin Total Energy (Btu / air dried product) Purchased Energy (Btu / air dried  Paper Type 20% 30%*  100%  % reduction from base case (virgin) 20% 30%* 100%  36.8  33.5  31.85  20.3  8.97  13.45  44.84  17.2  17.8  18.12  20.3  -3.49  -5.35  -18.02  13  product) Energy Generated by plant (Btu/ air dried product)  19.6 15.7 13.73 0 *Based on linear regression  19.90  29.95  100.00  As shown in the table above, 100% recycled paper has the greatest reduction in total energy required with 44.84% and with an energy requirement of 20.3 Btu per ton of air dried product. However, the amount of purchased energy (or energy taken from the grid) increases by 18.02%. This would indicate that with increasing recycling rates the dependence of energy from the grid, which is mainly electricity produced from carbon-intensive fossil fuels, increases.  Assuming a linear relationship between 20% and 100% recycled paper, the estimated reduction of energy and energy required for 30% recycled paper would be approximately 13.45% and 31.85 Btu per ton of air dried product, respectively. In addition, the amount of purchased energy increases by 5.35%.  6.2  Water Limited information was available for water consumption.  Based on material provided from the sustainability office and supply management, it shows 100%PCW will save approximately  14  7000 gallons of water in comparison to virgin paper (UBC5) "Recycling - It Adds Up!."). Since 30% also contains recycle content, overall virgin paper is the least sustainable paper group and the least preferably. 6.3  Emissions  Using the same study and techniques from the Energy Section, the following table was derived.  Table 3. Air Emissions for Different Paper Types  Paper Type Air Emissions (lb/ ton of air dried product) Virgin 20% 30%* 100% SO2 26.60 26.40 26.25 25.40 NOx 14.10 13.70 13.52 12.20 Particulates 11.70 10.70 10.25 6.90 CO2 - total 10200.00 8850.00 8175.00 3450.00 CO2 – fossil fuel 2850.00 2950.00 3022.62 3450.00 Hazardous air pollutants 2.20 1.80 1.60 0.20 VOC's 5.40 4.70 4.37 2.00 Total reduced sulfur 0.34 0.27 0.24 0.00 *Based on linear regression  % reduction from base case (virgin) 20% 30%* 100% 0.75 1.32 4.51 2.84 4.11 13.48 8.55 12.39 41.03 13.24 19.85 66.18 -3.51 -6.06 -21.05 18.18 12.96 20.59  27.27 19.07 29.41  From the table above, air emissions is greatly reduced as the recycle rate increases. However, CO2 emissions from fossil fuels increase as the recycle rate is increased. This trend is expected considering that as the recycle rate is increased the purchased 5  The basis was provided by the website "Recycling - It Adds Up!." (refer to Works Cited)  15  90.91 62.96 100.00  energy, electricity produced from carbon-based fossil fuels, increases.  7.0 Environment 7.1  Environmental Impacts In this section, life cycle energy use and environmental  releases of virgin paper, 30% recycled paper and 100% recycled paper is compared as shown in table 4 below. The data is obtained from The Paper Calculator, which is based on research done by the Paper Task Force. The paper, Lifecycle Environmental Comparison: Virgin Paper and Recycled Paper-Based Systems, is a peer-reviewed study of the lifecycle environmental impacts of paper production and disposal in 1995. The underlying data is updated regularly and industrial data was very limited to us to provide adequate comparisons. The previous emissions data provided previously assumes a linear relationship to determine 30%PCW emissions but this assumption may not be entirely valid. Thus, it is assume that this will be the main basis of our comparison on the overall life cycle energy use and environmental releases for all three types of paper. This quantitative analysis is based on three complete systems: (1) acquisition of virgin fiber, manufacture of virgin paper, followed by landfilling;  16  (2) acquisition of virgin fiber, manufacture of virgin paper, followed by incineration; and (3) manufacture of recycled paper, followed by recycling collection, processing and transport to the site of remanufacture. **Detailed definitions are described in Appendix Table 1A** For the presentation of data for virgin paper, the two systems are reduced to “virgin production plus waste management”, which is a weighted average of the “virgin production plus incineration” systems. In the comparison, some important activities involved in the virgin fiber-based systems were omitted due to lack of data (Duke University, 1995): •  acquisition of virgin fiber from forests, including energy (and associated wastes) involved in planting, site preparation and stand tending activities, and production, use and disposal of forest chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides); only energy required for tree harvesting, for transport of logs or chips from the forest to the mill, and for debarking and chipping of logs is included, as well as its associated air and water releases and solid waste:  •  releases to the air and water from MSW landfills, except for carbon dioxide and methane emissions;  •  releases to the air from incinerators, except for carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides and particulates; and  •  releases from ash landfills.  17  Air emission and waterborne waste from both production stages and waste treatment are also included and as defined as follows (Duke University, 1995): •  for air: hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) and total reduced sulfur (TRS); and  •  for water: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), suspended solids, adsorbable organic halogens (AOX) and effluent quantity/water use.  Table 4: Summary of lifecycle environmental impacts and equivalents their percentage difference Virgin  30%  Difference %  100%  Paper Recycle Recycle (Virgin Paper (Virgin Paper (30% Recycle  Wood Use  Total Energy  Greenhouse Gases  3  2  0  tons  tons  tons  56  52  44  million  BTU's  BTU's  5,690  5,058  3,582  CO2 equiv.  Wastewater Solid Waste  Paper is  with 30%  with 100%  differed with  Recycle  Recycle  100% Recycle  Paper by)  Paper by)  Paper by)  0  100  100  7  15  15  11  29  29  14  37  37  15  40  40  lbs CO2 lbs CO2 equiv.  equiv.  19,075  16,450 10,325  gallons  gallons gallons  2,278  is differed  million million  BTU's  lbs  is differed  1,941  1,155  18  pounds pounds pounds From table 4, it is observed that the virgin paper always have a higher consumption of wood and energy. In addition, it produces more emission of greenhouse gases, higher discharge of wastewater and higher amount of disposal of solid waste. Therefore, the option of “recycled production plus recycling” saves more energy, consumes less material and generates less waste compared to the option of “virgin production plus waste management”. Furthermore, it was found that one “mature tree” (UBC TREK Program Centre) is able to remove 13lbs/year of CO2. Assuming for every tree saved by producing PCW rather than virgin paper, that amount of CO2 will be absorbed from the emissions released, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions are provided below. Table 5: Green House Gas Reduction Basis: 1 Tree = 13 lb/year CO2 Absorbed PCW Virgin 30% 24 17 Trees Consumed Trees Saved (assume virgin 0 7 paper as basis) CO2 Absorbed (emissions 0 4967.00 eliminated) New Total Emissions released 5690 91.00 0.00% 98.20% % Reduction %Reduced relative to Virgin Paper  0.00%  98.40%  100% 0 24 3270.00 312.00 91.29% 94.52%  As shown above in Table 5, it is obvious that most environmentally sound paper type for production would be 30%PCW paper achieving the highest reduction out of the three types and lowest overall emissions.  19  7.2  Environmental Concerns In the section previous section, it is clear that virgin paper is  consuming more energy, more material and is generating more waste than recycle paper. The acquisition of virgin fiber can decrease biodiversity, lead to erosion or even deforestation. For instance, there will be fewer trees to absorb carbon dioxide, which is a major contributor to global warming. Furthermore, without recycling, solid and liquid waste generated is sent to land-filling or incinerating leading to leachate and toxic air emissions. Although 100% post consumer waste recycle paper is not feasible in the long run, government and publics should always recycle papers to reduce the environmental impacts. Waste water, leachate and run-off can contain toxic substances that can potentially pollute other fresh water sources and farmlands. High Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) effluent consume the dissolved oxygen in water. Aquatic lives can be suffocated because of insufficient dissolved oxygen. Heavy metals ions such as lead and nickel can lead to metal poisoning. Lead poisoning can damage nervous cells which cause blood and brain disorders. Dioxins from the bleaching process are carcinogenic. Also, it can causes chloracne, an extreme skin disease (International Chemical Safety Cards). 7.3  Paper Assessment Applicable to UBC  20  From UBC data6, the comparison between 100%PCW is much more sustainable than virgin paper since it saves more energy, water and trees. 100%PCW also reduces environmental impact since it releases lower emissions and frees up landfill space. The comparison between 100%PCW and virgin paper is summarized in the following table. Table 6: 100% PCW Comparison to Virgin Paper Relative to Virgin Paper  Amount Saved by Using  (annual basis)  100% PCW (based on Paper Reduction Plan)  Trees  17  Water  7000gallons  Air Pollution (lbs)  60  Energy (kWh)  4100  Landfill Area (yd3)  3  ** The above values were provided by the UBC’s sustainability office**  8.0 Economic Analysis (unwritten) SUPERIOR QUALITY Unisource Canada guarantees that their 30% post-consumer recycled paper is the same quality as virgin. In the last few years, a lot of fine-tuning has taken place with recycled paper. Quality issues that may have been a concern just a few years ago have been resolved. Departments like Geography, Computer Science and the President's Office as well as businesses like UBC Supply Management and Copyright in the SUB have all been using 30% post-consumer recycled paper from Unisource for sometime and have not had any complaints. Prices as of June 2007  6  The basis UBC relies on is from the "Recycling - It Adds Up!" (refer to Works Cited)  21  8.5x11 price/1000 sheets Husky recycled white $ 6.80 Econosource virgin white $ 6.12  8.5x14 $ 8.70 $ 8.11  11x17 $ 13.66 $ 12.75  Assuming that on average, a department uses 200,000 sheets a month, this is the difference in cost and the number of trees used when Husky is purchased instead of Econosource: Husky $6.80 (1000 sheets) x 200 = $1360/ month  Econosource $6.12 (1000 sheets) x 200 = $1224/month  $1360/month x 12 months = $16, 320/year  $1224/month x 12 months = $14, 688/year  16.8 trees/month  24 trees/month (requires 86.4 more trees per year)  Husky v. Econosource yearly cost difference:  $1632.00  Figures courtesy of Paul Kilpatrick. Source:  9.0 Conclusion 10.0 Recommendations All recommendations are for improving the quality of the data. The majority of our uncertainties are all due to the limited availability of released data. It would be more accurate to conduct a feasibility study with the contributions from the stages of raw material acquisition, packaging deliver and product use to have a more thorough outlook on the long term impacts. It is also recommended that the different paper grades should be investigated on to address the better paper grade rather than recycled content, since a large amount of energy and water consumption is depending on the process. It may also be good to analyze treatment technology and capture methods to assess the amount and type of waste produced can be reduced efficiently. Thus, a comparison 22  between wastes produced to waste treated can be considered. It was found based on analysis that mechanical pulping requires less energy then chemical. It is also recommended that data analysis will be focused on Canada to increase the reports applicability to UBC.  11.0 Limitations in Assessment There were several limitations due to the data used to conduct our life cycle analysis that one must be aware of. A lot of the information in the entire life cycles was not available or recorded. Emissions released during packaging, delivery and raw material acquisition stages were unattainable or not released by industrial resources. It was assumed that the major contributing factor would be within the process steps and so our scope was quite limited. Most importantly, to produce pure 100%PCW paper is impossible, because recycled lignin will degrade and shorten over time (Moll et al). The majority of the numeric information that was used in our analysis was provided by one single, though accredited, organization which was the Paper Task Force of the Environmental Defense Fund. This organization is a volunteering based group comprised of businesses that uses a lot of paper (“A New Way To Buy Paper”). Therefore, there is limited assurance of the accuracies of the values. Possible biases are present by this source since this paper force was based on values applicable to the United States of America. The environmental impact numbers were provided by the Paper Task Force group through the correlation from a collection of paper studies. However, some of the papers date back to 1992 and the paper demand and technology have improved tremendously since then.  23  There is much more green technology with better production techniques with less pollution that companies have implemented. However, different technologies have different efficiencies, and so the feasibility of a certain paper type changes depending on the available or in service technology. Furthermore, it depends on the abundance and renewable nature of the raw materials. For now it may be most feasible to use 30%PCW paper, but if future advancements and the priorities are valued differently, an alternative paper type may be preferable.  12.0 Works Cited "A New Way To Buy Paper." Paper Task Force. 01 Jan 1995. Environmental Defense Fund. 12 Apr 2008 <>. "cellulose: Definition and Much More from" Online Dictionary, Encyclopedia and much more. 12 Apr. 2008 <>. "Chemical Sampling Information: Methyl Mercaptan." Occupational Safety and Health Administration - OSHA HOME PAGE. 12 Apr. 2008 < tml>. Duke University, Environmental Defense Fund, Johnson & Johnson, Mcdonald's, The Prudential Insurance Company Of America, and Time Inc.. "No. 3: Lifecycle Environmental Comparison - Virgin Paper and Recycled Paper-Based Systems." Paper Task Force 1 (1995). 19 Mar. 2008 <>.  24  "Fact files: The pulping process | Pro Carton Design." Good packaging protects, sells, and is useful | Pro Carton Design. 12 Apr. 2008 <>. "hemicellulose: Definition and Much More from" - Online Dictionary, Encyclopedia and much more. 12 Apr. 2008 <>. "UBC TREK Program Centre." Home - UBC TREK Program Centre. 13 Apr. 2008 <>. International Chemical Safety Cards, "POP - Poly Chlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)." POP - Poly Chlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). 2008. Sustainlabour. 12 Apr 2008 < ent&task=view&id=74&Itemid=212>. Kindsigo and J. Kallas, M.. " Wet oxidation of debarking water: changes in lignin content and biodegradability." Lappeenranta University of Technology 14 Mar 2008 12 Apr 2008 < xt.pdf>. Lee, Quak Foo. "Pulp Production and Paper Making." Advance Chemical Technology Center. Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering. 12 Apr 2008 <>.  25  Moll, Henri C., Jose Potting, and Niels J. Schenk. “The Nonlinear Relationship between Paper Recycling and Primary Pulp Requirements: Modeling Paper Production and Recycling in Europe.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 8.4 (2004): 141-161 Olsen, James. "Introduction to Mechanical Pulping and Papermaking." Lecture Notes. UBC. 12 Apr 2008 < pdf>. "Paper Background." How Products Are Made Volume 2. 01 Jan 2007. Advameg.Inc. 12 Apr 2008 <>. Paper Task Force, "Lifecycle Environmental Impacts and Equivalents for Virgin Paper." Paper 01 Jan 2008. Environmental Defense Fund. 12 Apr 2008 <>. "Preconsumer Waste." Preconsumer Waste. 01Apri 2008. 12 Apr 2008 <>. "Recycling - It Adds Up!." Welcome to the Math League. 13 Apr. 2008 <>. UBC Sustainability Office. “Statistics from Paper Reduction Plan, Description of Calculations.” "Tips for selecting, buying and reducing paper - Corporate Partnerships Environmental Defense Fund." Environmental Defense Fund 26  Finding the Ways That Work. 12 Apr. 2008 <>. "Treecycle Recycled Paper: About Recycling and Recycled Paper." Treecycle Recycled Paper and Environmentally Friendly Cleaning Products: Recycled Paper and Environmentally Friendly Cleaners. 12 Apr. 2008 < > “UBC Baseline Study Overview 2006.” UBC Supply Management. "What is Post Consumer Waste?" Paper Terminology. 01 Jan 2008. New Leaf Paper Terminology. 12 Apr 2008 <>.  13.0 Appendices Table 1A: Three systems provided by Lifecycle Environmental Comparison: Virgin Paper and Recycled Paper-Based Systems Virgin  -  harvesting of trees, transporting of logs (or chips) to the  Production  mill, debarking and chipping, and manufacture of pulp  plus  and paper using virgin fiber;  Incineration:  -  waste collection and transport; placement in the landfill; generation of leachate, and leachate management, treatment and disposal; generation of landfill gas, and possible recovery and utilization of such gas (energy production); and land use issues.  Virgin  -  harvesting of trees, transporting of logs (or chips) to the  Production  mill, debarking and chipping, and manufacture of pulp  plus Land-  and paper using virgin fiber;  27  filling:  -  waste collection and transport; possible pre-processing at the incinerator (e.g., refusederived fuel vs. mass-burn facilities); the incineration process and management of air emissions; energy generation; ash management (storage, transport) and disposal; and generation of ash leachate, and leachate management, treatment and disposal.  Recycled  -  material collection (curbside collection, commingled or  Production  source-separated; drop-off or buy-back centers;  plus  commercial collection); transport; pre-processing at  Recycling:  material recovery facilities (MRFs); residuals management and disposal; and transport of processed recovered material to the remanufacturing site; -  Remanufacturing of pulp and paper using recovered fiber.  28  Table 2A: Summary of lifecycle environmental impacts and equivalents Difference Virgin Paper  Wood Use  Total Energy  Energy  Sulfur dioxide (SO2)  Greenhouse Gases  (Virgin Paper – 30% Recycle)  100% Recycle  (Virgin Paper – 100% Recycle)  3  2  1  7  0  3  24  tons  tons  tons  trees  tons  tons  Trees  38  33  5  <1  22  17  <1  homes/year  million BTU's  <1  22  homes/year  million BTU's  <1  26  <1  pounds  pounds  <1  3,582  2,108  cars/year  lbs CO2 equiv.  million BTU's  Purchased  30% Recycle  Difference  18 million BTU's  million BTU's 19 million BTU's  million BTU's -1 million BTU's  26  26  <1  pounds  pounds  pounds  5,690  5,058  632  lbs CO2  lbs CO2  lbs CO2  equiv.  equiv.  equiv.  18wheelers/year  29  million BTU's -3 million BTU's  lbs CO2 equiv.  homes/year <1 homes/year <1 18wheelers/year <1 cars/year  Nitrogen oxides (NOx) Particulates Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) Volatile  18  17  1  pounds  pounds  pounds  12  11  2  pounds  pounds  pounds  2  2  pounds  <1  14  4  pounds  pounds  <1  7  5  <1  buses/year  pounds  pounds  buses/year  <1  <1  2  pounds  pounds  pounds  pounds  6  4  1  2  4  pounds  pounds  pounds  pounds  pounds  <1  <1  <1  0  <1  pounds  pounds  pounds  pounds  pounds  19,075  16,450  2,625  10,325  8,750  gallons  gallons  gallons  6  6  <1  18wheelers/year  <1 18wheelers/year  Organic Compounds (VOCs) Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS) Wastewater  Biochemical  <1 swimming pools <1  30  gallons 6  <1  gallons swimming pools <1  <1  Oxygen Demand  pounds  pounds  pounds  homes/year  pounds  pounds  homes/year  10  9  <1  <1  7  3  <1  pounds  pounds  pounds  homes/year  pounds  pounds  homes/year  92  73  19  <1  28  64  <1  pounds  pounds  pounds  homes/year  pounds  pounds  homes/year  <1  <1  <1  0  <1  pounds  pounds  pounds  pounds  pounds  2,278  1,941  337  <1  1,155  1,124  pounds  pounds  pounds garbage trucks  pounds  (BOD) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Adsorbable organic halogens (AOX) Solid Waste  pounds garbage trucks  Source: Duke University, Environmental Defense Fund, Johnson & Johnson, Mcdonald's, The Prudential Insurance Company Of America, and Time Inc.. "No. 3: Lifecycle Environmental Comparison - Virgin Paper and Recycled Paper-Based Systems." Paper Task Force 1 (1995). 19 Mar. 2008 <>  31  <1  32  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items