Streamlined LCA of Paper Supply Systems: Delivering Sustainable Solutions in A More Competitive World

Streamlined LCA of Paper
Supply Systems
Final Report
April 2012
Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world

DEFRA
Streamlined LCA of Paper Supply

Systems
Final Report
April 2012
Reference: 0111587/13/01
Prepared by: Saori Smith and Paul-Antoine Bontinck
Reviewed by: James Cadman, Michael Collins and

Karen Fisher
For and on behalf of

Environmental Resources Management
Approved by: Simon Aumonier
Signed:
Position: Partner
Date: 23 March 2012
This report has been prepared by Environmental Resources

Management the trading name of Environmental Resources
Management Limited, with all reasonable skill, care and diligence
within the terms of the Contract with the client, incorporating our
General Terms and Conditions of Business and taking account of the
resources devoted to it by agreement with the client.
We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of

any matters outside the scope of the above.
This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility

of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part
thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at their
own risk.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview
Environmental Resources Management Limited (ERM) was commissioned by

Defra to undertake a streamlined life cycle assessment (LCA) to investigate the
environmental performance of different office paper supply options. Defra,
Buying Solutions and other Government Departments are interested in
understanding the relative merits of different options relating to procuring
office paper and office recycling services.
The specific objectives of the study were to:

 identify the relative life cycle environmental impacts of different office
paper supply scenarios, comprising different paper supply systems and
waste management options; and
 provide technical background on the relative environmental benefits of
different office paper supply systems to support future procurement
decisions within HM Government.
The office paper supply scenarios comprise a mix of paper supply systems.
These were selected by Defra, in discussion with WRAP, based on their
predominance in the UK paper supply (1). These scenarios included recycled
paper, virgin paper and ‘closed loop’ paper sources (paper suppliers who
reprocess the paper they supply).
‘Closed loop’ incorporates conventional recycling processes, but allows an

organisation to send used paper back to the original supplier mill for recycling
and to receive new paper back from the same mill. This system was of
interest, in that it reflects HMRC’s current paper supply system, which uses a
mill in Germany.
The study has undergone peer review and this report incorporates comments
from the review process. The scope of this study did not consider the socio-
economic impacts of the different paper scenarios, which would be a parallel
but separate research project.
The results of this research provide Defra with data to add to the evidence
base on paper supply and will inform decisions on the development of policy
in this area. The data may also be used to inform performance reporting and
monitoring of related projects.
(1) As such, paper supply systems and countries that provide relatively minor quantities to the UK are therefore not
included in the scenarios assessed in this study.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA
EX1
Approach and Scope
Life cycle assessments (LCA) typically comprise four steps as described by

international standards on LCA, ISO 14040:2006 (1) and 14044:2006 (2). A
streamlined LCA follows these steps but is limited in scope through the use of
secondary data, the life cycle stages considered or with regard to the
environmental impacts and flows considered.
It was agreed from the outset that the streamlined LCA would consider the
following environmental impacts and indicators:
 abiotic depletion, ie the consumption of non-living resources;
 global warming potential (GWP) as a measure of climate change;
 water use; and
 energy demand.
The functional units employed for this study, which allow for comparability
between different supply scenarios, were defined as follows:
 typical supply of office paper to the UK Government over a 12 month
period; and
 one tonne of paper.
Scenarios were devised to investigate the environmental impacts of the four

indicators above for various paper supply chain options that operate, or could
operate, in the UK. They took average (ave) and best in class (BiC)
technologies into account. These are given below:
Scenario Scenario Name Scenario Description

No.
S1 Business-As-Usual (BAU) 40% Recycled (average);
57% Virgin (average); and
3% Recycled Closed Loop (average)
S2a Closed Loop Recycled (ave) 100% Closed Loop Recycled (average)
S2b Closed Loop Recycled (BiC) 100% Closed Loop Recycled (Best-in-Class)
S3a Closed Loop Recycled & Virgin 75% Closed Loop Recycled (average); and
(ave) 25% Virgin (average)
S3b Closed Loop Recycled & Virgin 75% Closed Loop Recycled (Best-in-Class); and
(BiC) 25% Virgin (average)
S4a Virgin (ave) 100% Virgin (average)
S4b Virgin (BiC) 100% Virgin (Best-in-Class)
S5a Recycled (ave) 100% Recycled (average)
S5b Recycled (BiC) 100% Recycled (Best-in-Class)
(1) http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=37456
(2) http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=38498
EX2
As well as these main scenarios, three sensitivity analyses were undertaken
that tested the influence of the following:
 changes in transport distances for incoming fibre feedstock;
 changes in transport distances for distribution of the finished paper
production HM Government; and
 changes in energy source for pulp and paper production.
Results
Overall, the best in class options resulted in much lower environmental

impacts across the four indicators than their average technology counterparts.
This is mainly due to a lower reliance on fossil fuels and greater use of
renewable fuel sources. Indeed, the 100% recycled (BiC) route generally came
out with the lowest impacts overall. The chief reason for 100% recycled (BiC)
emerging as better than 100% closed loop recycled was the longer transport
distances to Germany, rather than the UK, that are required with the latter.
The key results of the streamlined LCA are presented in the box below.
Abiotic depletion impacts (1) are lowest for Scenario 5b: Recycled (BiC),
resulting in 71 t Sb-eq ‘per annum’ and 3 kg Sb-eq ‘per tonne’; and highest for
Scenario 2a: Closed Loop Recycled (ave), resulting in 315 t Sb-eq ‘per annum’
and 13 kg Sb-eq ‘per tonne’.
Global warming impacts (2) are lowest for Scenario 4b: Virgin (BiC), resulting
in 13 kt CO2-eq ‘per annum’ and 0.55 t CO2-eq ‘per tonne’; and highest for
Scenario 2a: Closed Loop Recycled (ave), resulting in 45 kt CO2-eq ‘per
annum’ and 1.9 t CO2-eq ‘per tonne’.
Water demand (3) is lowest for Scenario 5b: Recycled (BiC), resulting in 135 Ml
‘per annum’ and 5.6 m3 ‘per tonne’; and highest for Scenario 4a: Virgin (ave),
resulting in 2,274 Ml ‘per annum’ and 95 m3 ‘per tonne’.
Cumulative energy demand (4) is lowest for Scenario 5b: Recycled (BiC),
resulting in 372 TJ ‘per annum’ and 15.5 GJ ‘per tonne’, of which 56% is
renewable energy; and highest for Scenario 4a: Virgin (ave), resulting in 1375
TJ ‘per annum’ and 57 GJ ‘per tonne’, of which 79% is renewable energy.
(1) Abiotic depletion refers to the depletion of non-living (abiotic) resources (eg fossil fuels, minerals, clay, peat), measured
in terms of antimony equivalents (Sb-eq).
(2) Global warming potential (GWP) is a measure of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contributing to global warming,
measured in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-eq).
(3) Water use refers to the quantity of water consumed over the life cycle, including the embodied water of materials used
in the process, measured in cubic metres (m3). The water use modelled in this study excludes cooling water.
(4) Energy demand refers to the quantity of energy consumed over the life cycle, including embodied energy of the
materials used in the process, measured in megajoules (MJ). This excludes the calorific value of biogenic matter.
EX3
Influence of energy generation
The key factor that influences the environmental performance of the scenarios
is the proportion of energy that is sourced from fossil fuels. The combustion
of fossil fuels serves to increase all the environmental impacts and indicators
assessed in this study.
Therefore, it follows that the ‘best-in-class’ scenarios, which make use of paper
supply systems using a low proportion of fossil fuels in the energy mix, are
shown consistently to perform better across all impacts and indicators
assessed in this study. However, there is some uncertainty with regard to the
actual fuels used at the mill that the ‘best-in-class’ scenarios are based on. It is
possible that the actual energy mix would comprise a higher proportion of
fossil fuels, which would negatively impact on the environmental
performance of the ‘BiC’ options.
Influence of transport distances
The study showed that, although less influential than energy generation,
efficient transport routes will improve the environmental performance of all
paper supply options.
There is no discernible difference in the paper production process for recycled

paper from a closed loop system and from a non-closed loop system. The key
difference between the two systems relates to the incoming transport of the
fibre stock (sorted office waste). In this regard, there are benefits to locating
the recycled paper production facility proximately to where it will be used.
Influence of fibre feedstock
With regard to ‘best-in-class’ options, which are represented by low fossil fuel
consumption and high efficiency, there is little discernible difference between
recycled or virgin options. However, with regard to the ‘average’ options, the
influence of varying levels of fossil fuels is more apparent. Typically, virgin
mills are able to make use of biomass waste from the pulping process as a fuel,
which carries very little environmental burden. Recycling mills do not
produce the same biomass waste from the recycling process and are therefore
more dependent on externally sourced fuels, which are likely to be fossil-
based.
Summary
The key issue for reducing environmental impact of paper production is in the
energy source used and, by association, the sophistication of the technology
used. Choice of recycled fibre and shorter transport distances also play a role,
albeit a far lesser one.
Therefore, it can be summarised that a best-in-class, integrated, recycled paper

mill with on-site combined heat and power plant (CHP), fuelled by non-fossil
EX4
fuels (eg biomass) and that is located in relatively close proximity to both
waste paper sources and to its customers presents the most favourable option
in terms of environmental impacts. This does not necessarily indicate a
preference for a closed loop system.
With this perspective, it is recommended that purchasing specifications for

paper take more account of the energy source consumed in production.
EX5
CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 1
1 INTRODUCTION 2
1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND 2

1.2 REPORT LAYOUT 3
2 GOAL AND SCOPE 4
2.1 GOAL OF THE STUDY 4

2.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY 4
2.3 LIMITATIONS TO THE STUDY 12
3 PAPER SUPPLY SYSTEMS STUDIED 14
3.1 SCENARIO DESCRIPTIONS 14

3.2 PAPER SUPPLY SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS 15
3.3 SUMMARY OF SCENARIOS 21
4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESULTS 23
4.1 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT RESULTS 23

4.2 BREAKDOWN OF LCA RESULTS 26
4.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 35
5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES 36
5.1 TRANSPORT DISTANCES – LOCAL SOURCING OF FIBRE INPUTS 36

5.2 TRANSPORT DISTANCES – LOCAL DISTRIBUTION 40
5.3 ENERGY SOURCES 43
6 INTERPRETATION 45
6.1 RECYCLED VS VIRGIN PAPER 45

6.2 BEST IN CLASS PRODUCTION VS AVERAGE 45
6.3 CONVENTIONAL RECYCLING VS CLOSED LOOP RECYCLING 46
7 CONCLUSIONS 47
8 REFERENCES 48
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BiC Best-in-class
BREF Best Available Technique Reference Notes
CED Cumulative energy demand
CHP Combined Heat & Power
CO2-eq Carbon dioxide equivalents (measure for GWP)
Defra Department for Environment and Rural Affairs
GWP Global warming potential
LCA Life cycle assessment
LCI Life cycle inventory
Sb-eq Antimony equivalents (a measure for abiotic [non-
renewable] resource depletion)
SOW Sorted office waste
WRAP Waste and Resources Action Programme

1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND
Environmental Resources Management Limited (ERM) was commissioned by

DEFRA to undertake a streamlined life cycle assessment (LCA) to investigate
the environmental performance of different office paper supply options.
LCAs typically comprise four steps as described by international standards on

LCA, 1SO 14040:2006 (1) and 14044:2006 (2). A streamlined LCA follows these
steps but is limited in scope through the use of secondary data, the life cycle
stages considered or with regard to the environmental impacts and flows
considered.
Defra is interested in understanding the relative environmental benefits of

different options relating to procuring office paper and its subsequent
recycling route. Paper can come from a variety of sources, including virgin
(new) paper and recycled paper.
For recycled paper, one option under review is a ‘closed loop’ recycling
system. Although the actual recycling processes are generally the same as for
conventional paper recycling, here the same stock of paper is used, recycled
and then reused, over and over.
In a closed loop system, paper purchased and used by an organisation is

collected at end of life and returned to the same paper production facility it
was made in, for recycling. The resulting recycled paper is returned to the
original organisation for use, thus creating a closed loop where the same fibre
is used to make subsequent recycled paper. As described below, there is fibre
loss with each cycle and the closed loop system will consume more waste
paper than it produces. Therefore, there is a continuous need for an external
source of post-consumer fibre to maintain 100% recycled content and fibre
quality. This make-up is either achieved through the customer’s recycling
activities or through the mill sourcing additional fibre.
Closed loop recycling should be differentiated from conventional recycling

systems. In the latter, the source of the waste paper feedstock is relatively
uncertain. However, both will consume post-consumer waste paper, with
varying degrees of source uncertainty.
(1) http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=37456
(2) http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=38498

2
1.2 REPORT LAYOUT
The remainder of this report is set out as follows:

Section 2: Goal and Scope
Section 3: Paper Supply Options Assessed
Section 4: Impact Assessment Results
Section 5: Sensitivity Analyses
Section 6: Interpretation
Section 7: Conclusions
Section 8: References
Annex A: Life Cycle Inventory

3
2 GOAL AND SCOPE
2.1 GOAL OF THE STUDY
The specific objectives of the study are to:

 identify the relative life cycle environmental impacts of different office
paper supply scenarios, comprising different paper supply systems and
waste management options; and
 provide technical background on the relative environmental benefits of
different paper supply systems to support future procurement decisions
within HM Government.
ERM has completed a streamlined life cycle assessment (LCA) that assesses
the environmental performance of office paper supply scenarios that might be
operated in the UK.
The office paper supply scenarios comprise a mix of paper supply systems,
which were selected by Defra, in combination with data on paper purchasing
across HM Government, as collated by Buying Solutions. The paper supply
systems and country sources were selected based on their predominance in
the UK paper supply. As such, paper supply systems and countries that
provide relatively minor quantities to the UK are not included in the scenarios
assessed in this study.
The results of this research will both inform decisions on the development of
future policy in this area and provide a more robust evidence base for Defra’s
and Buying Solutions’ discussions regarding paper purchasing. The data may
also be used to inform performance reporting and monitoring of related
projects.
The study has undergone peer review and this report incorporates comments
from the review process. The scope of this study did not consider the socio-
economic impacts of the different paper scenarios, which would be a parallel
but separate research project.
2.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
2.2.1 Functional Units
The functional units employed for this study are defined as follows.

4
 Typical supply of office paper to the UK Government over a 12 month
period. For the purposes of this study, this is defined as 24,000 tonnes,
based on estimated UK consumption of office paper in 2010 (1).
 One tonne of paper, which allows for utility in analysis when comparing
the environmental performance of the different paper supply systems.
All the paper systems studied comprise production of A4 office paper of 80

gsm (2) thickness.
2.2.2 System Boundary
This study follows a cradle-to-grave approach. This means that all the major
life cycle stages related to the paper supply systems are considered, from raw
material extraction, through production, to distribution, use and end of life.
Energy and material inputs are traced back to the extraction of resources and
emissions and wastes from each life cycle stage are quantified.
A general flow diagram summarising the life cycle stages and system
boundaries for the paper supply systems is provided in Figure 2.1.
Further detail on the specific paper supply systems is provided in Section 3.
This study includes the following life cycle stages.
Production of raw materials, comprising:
 growing and extraction of raw materials (wood, minerals, etc);

 transport of raw materials to virgin pulp production;
 collection and sorting of post/pre-consumer paper (3);
 transport of post/pre-consumer paper to recycled pulp production;
 production of fuels and electricity consumed by processes; and
 waste collection and waste management (landfill, incineration, recycling).
(1) UK public offices paper consumption has been calculated based on an estimated increase of 2.8% on total consumption
in 2009 (see Annex A Life Cycle Inventory Data). The data are a result of the Cabinet Office ‘deep dive’.
(2) grams per square metre.
(3) It should be noted that whilst these terms are still used to denote recycled paper sources (ie before and after the
consumer uses it), the National Association of Paper Merchants (NAPM) prefers the use of 'genuine recovered fibres’ to
avoid potential confusion about the source of recycled fibre: http://www.napm.org.uk/recycled_mark.htm and
http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/2._Recycled_paper_content_definition.a8e4d09d.2965.pdf

5
Figure 2.1 System Boundary Flow Diagram
Environment: Resources
T
Extraction & Forestry Raw Material Inputs
Sorted Office Waste
T
Pulp Production
Other Product Systems
Secondary Transit T T
Energy Supply Systems
Packaging
T
Paper Production Primary Packaging
T
RDC & Retail
Use
T
End of life
Recycling Incineration Landfill
Extraction & processing of Electricity from natural
Energy source
substituted materials gas
Avoided processes
Environment: Air, Land & Water
Note: ‘T’ indicates a transport step
Pulp production, comprising:
 conversion of raw materials to pulp;

 production of secondary and transit materials for delivery of pulp to paper
production;
 transport of secondary and transit materials to pulp production;
Paper making and packing, comprising:
 conversion of pulp to paper;

 production of primary packaging materials;
 transport of primary packaging materials to paper production;
 packing of paper products in primary packaging materials;

6
Distribution
 production of secondary and transit packaging for delivery to retail;

 transport of secondary and transit packaging to paper production;
 transportation of packed paper to customer;
Use
 use is considered to be passive in terms of environmental impacts
End of life
 wastewater treatment;
2.2.3 Treatment of Recycling
The use of recycled materials has the potential to reduce the amount of virgin
material that is required to be produced. The reduced impact resulting from
the production of a smaller quantity of virgin material is included in
environmental assessments and can be allocated either to the acquisition of
the recycled material or to recycling the material at the end of the products’
life. Different allocation methods are considered to be appropriate, depending
on the properties of the materials in question and the control the producer has
over the recycling process or material choices. No single approach to the
determination of the allocation of recycling impacts can be said conclusively to
be correct.
For this study, the chosen method for allocating recycling impacts is the
‘recycled content’ method, otherwise known as the ‘100-0’ method. This
means that 100% of the reduced impact from production of less virgin
material is allocated to the acquisition of the recycled material. This method
has been selected based on the properties of paper recyclate and the extent to
which a producer of recycled paper has control over material choices.
The ‘recycled content’ method selected for this study aligns with the
requirements for the allocation of impacts from recycled materials as set in
PAS 2050:2011 ‘Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse

7
gas emissions of goods and services’ (1). The relevant properties of paper
recycling that inform this decision are summarised as follows.
 Recycling of paper fibre ‘downgrades’ the material to result in a product of
a lower grade with each recycling cycle. Therefore, although recycled
paper can have similar functionality to virgin paper, it is not a direct
substitute as the fibre degrades and no longer has the same intrinsic quality
as virgin fibre.
 Paper producers can control the quantity of recycled content in the product
and make choices about recycled fibre sourcing.
 The market for paper recyclate is not saturated.
 Paper can contain recycled material independent of whether it is recycled
downstream (ie the recycled fibre content does not influence whether the
paper is recycled at end of life).
2.2.4 Excluded Processes and Cut-Off Criteria
Certain elements of the life cycle have been excluded to ensure that the scope
of the study remains pragmatic with respect to the desired outcome. The
reason for doing so is to limit the resources expended in calculating the
environmental flows associated with small and insignificant inputs.
The following processes have been excluded from this study.

 Warehouse storage of the paper: any environmental impacts associated
with storage activities at the paper importers have been excluded. The
assumption is that energy consumption for lighting is minimal per tonne
of paper, when compared to production impacts.
 Capital equipment: any environmental impacts relating to the production
and disposal of infrastructure such as roads, machines, buildings, etc have
been excluded from the scope of the study. In some cases, it might not
have been possible to extract these from the life cycle inventories used, in
which case they have been included. Again, the assumption is that the
embodied energy in capital equipment is minimal when spread across all
the paper that is manufactured over the lifetime of the equipment, when
compared to direct energy consumption in production.
 Biogenic carbon: any environmental impacts relating to the storage of
biogenic carbon have been excluded from the scope of the study.
‘Biogenic’ is a term used to describe that carbon absorbed by plants from
the atmosphere, and released when they die and decompose or their
downstream products are disposed and decompose, and thus in a
relatively short cycle. This is as opposed to the long term cycle of fossil
forms of carbon such as oil and peat, the accelerated release of which has
led to changes in the atmospheric and oceanic carbon sinks.
(1) http://www.bsigroup.com/en/Standards-and-Publications/How-we-can-help-you/Professional-Standards-
Service/PAS-2050/PAS-2050/

8
 Turbine water: water consumed and used in turbines for renewable
energy generation from hydropower has been excluded from the scope of
the water use environmental indicator. The water is not actually
consumed, per se, but passes through the system with no alteration in
state.
 Cooling water: water consumed and used as cooling water has been
excluded from the scope of the water use environmental indicator.
In practice, all flows for which there is life cycle inventory data will be
included. For flows where inventory data are not available, the cut-off
criteria, along with expertise as to the environmental relevance of the flow,
will be used to judge significance and whether additional effort is required to
generate new inventory data.
2.2.5 Data Requirements and Data Quality
For the processes included within the system boundaries, all known inputs
and outputs are included in the inventory. The study was undertaken as a
desk-based review of published data, from which life cycle inventory data in
relation to paper production systems were extracted. As such, no primary
data collection exercise was undertaken for the purposes of this study.
However, information relating specifically to operations at Steinbeis Mill in

Germany was obtained from data reported by Steinbeis on its website.
Steinbeis Mill currently produces a closed loop recycled paper production for
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). It is a relatively new and
technologically-advanced recycled paper production facility and has therefore
formed the basis for ‘best-in-class’ recycled paper production.
Secondary data were compiled from existing published sources, either

publicly available or made available to ERM by Defra or WRAP. Most data
used in this study are sourced from the BREF for Pulp and Paper and
Ecoinvent (version 2.0).
The full source list and life cycle inventory data are provided in Annex A Life
Cycle Inventory.
Where specific data are not available, and estimates or assumptions have been
applied, these are described and specified in Annex A Life Cycle Inventory.
2.2.6 Modelling and Calculations
For life cycle modelling, the generation of inventories and the calculation of
environmental impacts, the LCA software tool SimaPro has been used.
SimaPro is a software tool specifically designed for LCA (SimaPro 2009).
The impact assessment method used in this study is the problem oriented
approach developed by CML (Centre for Environmental Science, Leiden

9
University (1)), updated this year as ‘ReCiPe’ (2), and incorporated into the
SimaPro (3) LCA software tool. This method was employed because it:
 offers a consistent and scientifically accepted set of characterisation

methods for the breadth of environmental impacts;
 has a track record of development and use by the LCA community and
governments globally;
 is justified by peer reviewed publications and detailed scientific
supporting material; and
 conforms to the ISO standards for LCA.
2.2.7 Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Methods Considered
A number of LCA impact assessment methods have been developed. For this
study, the CML 2001 (December 2007) method has been used to assess global
warming and resource depletion impacts. In addition, water and cumulative
energy demand environmental indicators were assessed using the SimaPro
LCA software.
As agreed with Defra, the streamlined LCA will consider the following
environmental impacts and indicators:
(1) www.cml.leiden.edu
(2) www.lcia-recipe.net/ - ReCiPe was developed to provide a single impact assessment method that combines both mid-
point and end-point analysis. It is so named as it is intended to provide a recipe to calculate life cycle impact category
indicators. The capitalized letters represent the major contributors to the project, being RIVM and Radboud
University, CML, and PRé.
(3) www.pre-sustainability.com/content/simapro-lca-software

10
Impact or Description Importance Unit of
Indicator measurement
Abiotic Abiotic depletion is a measure Consumption of resources that Antinomy

depletion of the impact from the cannot be regenerated, or may equivalents
extraction and consumption of take thousands of years to do (kg Sb-eq)
non-living resources, such as so, limits the options of future
fossil fuels, minerals, clay or generations and can result in
peat. more expensive and damaging
exploration and extraction of
poorer or less available
reserves.
Global GWP is a measure of the The main consequence of Carbon

warming adverse impact of man-made climate change is global dioxide
potential greenhouse gas (GHG) warming, which results in equivalents
(GWP) emissions that cause heat to be increased temperatures and (kg CO2 eq)
trapped in the atmosphere and regional climate changes. This
results in a temperature rise of increases adverse effects to
the Earth’s surface. GHGs human health, agriculture and
include carbon dioxide (CO2), wildlife.
methane (CH4) and nitrous
oxide (N2O), amongst others.
Energy Energy demand refers to the Energy demand is considered Megajoules

demand quantity of energy consumed more of an indicator than an energy
over the life cycle, including impact. However the value (MJ)
embodied energy of the presents the amount of energy
materials used in the process. needed to produce the product
being considered and can be
used to indicate which
products may have a high
demand.
Water Water depletion is a measure Volumetric water use is Volume of

depletion of the water extracted for use considered more of an water
in the systems considered and indicator than an impact as (m3)
does not include closed loop local conditions will influence
systems (eg cooling water) or the importance of the value.
the return of this water to the However, this value presents
environment. the volume of water needed to
produce the product being
considered and can be used to
indicate which products may
have a high demand.
Water demand is modelled in Simapro using Ecoinvent life cycle inventory

(LCI) data. This includes embodied water consumption for the materials and
processes that are part of a paper supply system. However, it should be noted
that Ecoinvent LCI data were not compiled with water footprinting in mind.
Consequently, there is some uncertainty regarding their application for this
environmental indicator. Although there are specific water footprinting
emission factors for some materials, they are not available for several key
materials in the production of paper. Therefore, it is considered that
Ecoinvent provides the most complete dataset to estimate water demand for

11
this study. Nevertheless, the water demand indicator applied in this study
should be differentiated from water footprinting methodology (eg Water
Footprinting Network (1)), which takes the source and quality of the water and
local conditions, such as water scarcity, into consideration.
Normalisation and weighting of the results have not been undertaken in this
study.
2.2.8 Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis allows key variables and assumptions to be changed to

test their influence on the results of the impact assessment. For this study, the
following were assessed:
 changes in transport distances for the distribution of the finished paper
production to HM Government; and
2.3 LIMITATIONS TO THE STUDY
2.3.1 Secondary data for average European production of paper
Secondary data for average production of paper in Europe were sourced from
the BREF for Pulp and Paper. This document is a European Commission
reference document for best available techniques for the industry and
compiles average production data and techniques. Therefore, it is considered
to be the most appropriate source to represent average European production
for this study.
However, given the considerable potential variety in pulping and

papermaking processes, there is uncertainty in determining exactly what
is‘average’. The BREF data provides data relative to the production of
different types of pulp and different types of paper, in order to identify
varying energy and material requirements. There are inherent uncertainties in
relation to the use of secondary data, but it is considered that the BREF
provides adequate differentiation between pulping and paper types.
The data provided in the BREF for Pulp and Paper relate to production in
2001, and so it cannot be said to be current. It would be preferable to use data
that relate to more recent production, ideally within the last two years.
However, the current draft for the updated BREF for Pulp and Paper (2010)
does not update the production data from those provided in 2001. Therefore,
the data provided in the 2001 BREF and which have been used in this
assessment, are considered to be the most appropriate available.
(1) http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/WaterFootprintAssessmentManual

12
2.3.2 Scope of water demand indicator
The water demand indicator in this assessment presents the volume of water
consumed in the life cycle. However, this does not take into account local
conditions, which will influence the importance of water removals to the local
environment. Nevertheless, this indicator is still useful in terms of identifying
production systems that have a high water demand. A more detailed
understanding of how important this is to the local environment would
require additional analysis.
2.3.3 Potential impact of biomass-based energy generation
This study considers the direct environmental impact of the life cycle of paper
production. It is recognised that there are consequential impacts of certain
material or energy source choices that could be of significance to the
environmental impacts and indicators assessed in this study. For example,
increased use of biomass energy could encourage the production of biomass
as a feedstock for energy generation, which will have implications on
greenhouse gas emissions, in particular land use change.
However, there is considerable uncertainty associated with predicting the

consequences of such material or energy source choices and there is not
currently a defined method for doing so. Furthermore, this study assesses the
impact of using biogenic process waste for energy generation, which requires
neither external sourcing of biomass, nor production of biomass specifically
for energy generation. Therefore, whilst highlighting that there are
consequences to the selection of materials and energy sources, given the
characteristics of the system studied and the uncertainties associated with
consequential environmental impacts, it was not considered appropriate to
quantify them in this study.
2.3.4 Accounting for the number of times paper fibres are recycled
The number of times that fibres are reused and the allocation of the original
winning of virgin fibre impacts over each use have not been considered in this
study. The allocation of the virgin fibre winning impacts over several
lifetimes of the fibre will reduce the impact of virgin paper which, given that
the ‘age’ of each fibre is uncertain, might present a misleadingly optimistic
result. However, this study attributes the full burden of winning the virgin
fibre to the first product life cycle, which is consistent with the 100:0 approach
and reflects the product specifications.
As fibres are limited in the number of times they can be recycled, due to loss
of physical properties and loss through pulping, there is a need to maintain
fibre properties by introducing higher quality fibres in each cycle. This can be
achieved by introducing virgin fibre or waste paper with the required fibre
properties. Such inputs are generally seen by higher fibre inputs to pulping
processes than are output as paper.

13
3 PAPER SUPPLY SYSTEMS STUDIED
3.1 SCENARIO DESCRIPTIONS
This study investigates the potential environmental impacts of different office

paper supply scenarios, comprising different paper supply systems and waste
management options.
Table 3.1 provides a description of the scenarios assessed in the LCA. The
scenarios are further described in Section 3, which includes detail relating to
the paper supply options.
The office paper supply systems that make up the scenarios have been defined
to represent ‘typical’ European production. However, there can be
considerable variation in the operation from mill to mill, which can influence
the environmental performance of the paper produced. Based on previous
published studies on paper production, it is known that energy consumption
from the pulp and paper making processes accounts for a considerable
proportion of the impact. Therefore, in order to identify the likely range in the
environmental performance of the office paper supply scenarios, they are
further sub-divided in terms of ‘average’ and ‘best-in-class’ technology.

14
Table 3.1 Description of Office Paper Supply Scenarios
Scenario Scenario Name Paper Supply and Technology Option Waste Management Option
Number
1 Business-As-Usual (BAU)
40% Recycled (average) 100% recycled in UK
57% Virgin (average) 100% recycled in UK
3% Recycled Closed Loop (average) Returned to source for closed loop recycling
2a Recycled Closed Loop (ave)

2b Recycled Closed Loop (BiC)

100% Recycled Closed Loop (best-in-class) Returned to source for closed loop recycling
3a Recycled Closed Loop (ave) and Virgin (ave)

3b Recycled Closed Loop (BiC) and Virgin (ave)

4a Virgin (ave)
4b Virgin (BiC)
100% Virgin (best-in-class) 100% recycled in UK
5a Recycled (ave)
5b Recycled (BiC)
100% Recycled (best-in-class) 100% recycled in UK
3.2 PAPER SUPPLY SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS
The Scenarios described in Table 3.1 comprise combinations of three different

paper supply systems, which are referred to in this study as follows:
 recycled;
 virgin; and
 closed loop recycled.
The following sections provide a description of the paper supply systems

assessed. The paper supply systems have been defined on the basis of
‘typical’ European production, supported by reasonable assumptions.
3.2.1 Recycled
Two recycled paper production systems are modelled in this study to

represent ‘best-in-class’ and ‘average’ technology, as follows.
 Recycled (average): this system refers to recycled paper contained in
Scenario 1: Business-As-Usual and Scenario 5a: Recycled (ave). The pulp and
paper production facility is modelled based on ‘average’ European
technology (1). Energy for the pulp and paper production process is
sourced from a mix of grid electricity, liquid fuels and on-site generation.
On-site energy generation comprises a mix of renewable generation,
comprising hydropower; and co-generation, comprising Combined Heat &
Power (CHP) fuelled by natural gas and biogenic wastes. It is assumed
that 100% of biogenic waste used for energy generation is sourced from
on-site processes (ie not externally sourced biomass).
 Recycled (best-in-class): This system refers to recycled paper that is
contained in Scenario 5b: Recycled (BiC). The pulp and paper production
facility is modelled based on ‘best-in-class’ European technology (2). 100%
of the energy for the pulp and paper production process is sourced from
on-site generation, which comprises co-generation (CHP) fuelled by
natural gas and biogenic waste (3). It is assumed that 100% of biogenic
waste used for energy generation is sourced from on-site processes (ie not
externally sourced biomass).
The recycled paper supply system represents production of European recycled

paper. It is assumed that sorted office waste (SOW) is sourced from within-
country and transported to an integrated recycled pulp and paper production
facility. The facility is a dedicated recycled pulp and paper mill that produces
(1) The characteristics for 'average European technology' are assumed based on the BREF for Pulp and Paper.
(2) The Recycled (BiC) system is modelled using data for Steinbeis Mill, which is used to represent a ‘best-in-class’ recycled
pulp and paper mill. It is assumed that there is no difference between the closed loop and unclosed loop pulp and paper
production system in terms of the operations undertaken at the mill for pulp and paper production (ie all inputs and
outputs at the mill are the same).
(3) Clarification on the specific fuels utilised at Steinbeis Mill for generation of on-site energy was not received. Therefore,
the energy mix modelled for the ‘Best-in-Class’ system in this study was assumed by ERM based on an alternative
European recycled paper mill (confidential data).

15
solely office paper. Spent fibres that are not suitable for further recycling are
disposed, as sludge, to sanitary landfill.
The finished paper is packed and loaded onto road vehicles for transport to
the UK, assumed to be via the Calais-Dover Channel crossing. Upon arrival in
the UK, the paper is transported by road to various HM Government locations
in the UK.
At end of life, 100% of the used recycled paper is managed by recycling within
the UK.
Figure 3.1 shows the key material and energy flows in the life cycle of the
recycled paper supply system.
Figure 3.1 Recycled Paper Supply System
post‐consumer paper
pre‐consumer paper emissions to air
Pulp
pulping chemicals emissions to water
Production
energy and fuels solid wastes
water
recycled pulp
papermaking emissions to air
Paper
energy and fuels emissions to water
Production
water solid wastes
primary packaging
road transport
Distribution
energy and fuels emissions to air
emissions to water
road transport solid wastes
Retail
energy and fuels
Use
waste lorry
road transport End of Life waste to recycling
energy and fuels
Life cycle inventory data used to model the environmental impacts of the
recycled paper supply system, including sources and any manipulations or
assumptions, are provided in Annex A Life Cycle Inventory.
3.2.2 Virgin Paper
Two virgin paper production systems are modelled in this study to represent
‘best-in-class’ and ‘average’ technology as follows:
 Virgin (average): this system refers to virgin paper contained in Scenario
1: Business-As-Usual, Scenario 3a: Closed Loop Recycled (ave) & Virgin (ave),

16
Scenario 3b: Closed Loop Recycled (BiC) & Virgin (ave) and Scenario 4a: Virgin
(ave).
The pulp and paper production facility is modelled based on ‘average’
European technology (1) using a chemical (sulphate) pulping method.
Energy for the pulp and paper production process is sourced from a mix of
grid electricity, liquid fuels and on-site generation. On-site energy
generation comprises a mix of renewable generation (hydro) and co-
generation (CHP) fuelled by natural gas and biogenic wastes. Energy for
the pulp and paper production process is sourced from a mix of grid
electricity, liquid fuels and on-site generation. On-site energy generation
comprises a mix of renewable generation, comprising hydropower; and
co-generation, comprising CHP fuelled by natural gas and biogenic
wastes. It is assumed that 100% of biogenic waste used for energy
generation is sourced from on-site processes (ie not externally sourced
biomass). The specific mix of fuels used for on-site energy generation
varies according to the country of production.
Table 3.2 provides a summary of country-specific fuel mixes for on-site

energy generation (2).
Table 3.2 Fuel Sources for On-Site Energy Generation for Virgin Paper Supply System
(CEPI)
Fuel for On-Site Scandinavia Iberian Peninsula Russia

Energy Generation
Finland Norway Sweden Portugal Spain
Hydro 5% 26% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Biomass 29% 9% 37% 31% 12% 22%
Natural Gas 7% 8% 6% 5% 28% 13%
Fuel Oil 0% 0% 0% 6% 3% 0%
Coal 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8%
Peat 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
 Virgin (best-in-class): this system refers to virgin paper that is contained

in Scenario 4b: Virgin (BiC). The pulp and paper production facility is
modelled to represent ‘best-in-class’ European technology (3). 100% of the
energy for the pulp and paper production process is sourced from on-site
generation, which comprises co-generation (CHP) fuelled by natural gas
(1) The characteristics for 'average European technology' are assumed based on the BREF for Pulp and Paper and Ecoinvent
LCI data.
(2) CEPI (2006) ’Looking good in print: CHP and the use of biomass in the European pulp and paper industry,’
http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/280234/articles/cogeneration-and-on-site-power-
production/volume-7/issue-6/features/looking-good-in-print-chp-and-the-use-of-biomass-in-the-european-pulp-and-
paper-industry.html
(3) The Virgin (BiC) system is modelled using data from Ecoinvent, modified to represent a ‘best-in-class’ mill. Total
energy consumption (ie total MJ) for virgin pulp and paper production is taken from the Ecoinvent dataset. The soufce of
the energy (ie from fossil or renewable sources) is based on on-site energy generation capabilities at Steinbeis Mill, which is
a recently upgraded facility with advanced on-site energy generation technology. The energy consumption from the
Ecoinvent dataset, comprising a mix of fossil and renewable sources, was modified to represent the same proportional mix
of fuel sources as that at Steinbeis Mill, whilst the total energy consumption remained the same.

17
and biogenic waste (1). It is assumed that 100% of biogenic waste used for
energy generation is sourced from on-site processes (ie not externally
sourced biomass).
The virgin paper supply system represents production of European virgin

paper consumed by HM Government (2), which comprises paper production in
different European regions, as follows:
 Scandinavia, comprising Finland, Norway and Sweden (53%);
 Iberian Peninsula, comprising Portugal and Spain (41%); and
 Russia (6%).
It is assumed that the Scandinavian virgin paper system is sourced equally

from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Similarly, it is assumed that the Iberian
Peninsula Virgin paper system is sourced equally from Portugal and Spain.
It is assumed that wood logs and chips are sourced from within country and
transported by road, rail and sea to an integrated virgin pulp and paper
production facility. Virgin pulp produced at the facility is mixed with
externally sourced pulp to produce a partially-integrated virgin paper
product (3). The facility is a dedicated virgin pulp and paper mill that
produces solely office paper.
the closest appropriate port. The paper is transported by sea to the UK,
whereupon it is transported by road to warehouse storage prior to delivery to
various HM Government locations in the UK.
At end of life, 100% of the used virgin paper is managed by recycling.
virgin paper supply system.
virgin paper supply system, including sources and any manipulations or
assumptions, are provided in Annex A Life Cycle Inventory.
(1) Clarification on the specific fuels used at Steinbeis Mill for generation of on-site energy was not received. Therefore, the
energy mix modelled for the ‘Best-in-Class’ system in this study was assumed by ERM based on an alternative European
recycled paper mill (confidential data).
(2) Office for National Statistics via DEFRA
(3) It is commonplace at European virgin paper facilities to produce paper that contains both internally and externally
produced pulps. The proportions of internal and external pulps are based on average European data sourced from
Ecoinvent.

18
Figure 3.2 Virgin Paper Supply System
wood
emissions to air
pulping chemicals Pulp
emissions to water
energy and fuels Production
solid wastes
water
virgin pulp
papermaking chemicals emissions to air
Paper
Production
water solid wastes
primary packaging
road transport
Distribution
emissions to water
Retail
energy and fuels
Use
wastewater treatment
waste lorry
packaging to landfill
road transport End of Life
packaging to recycling
energy and fuels
packaging to incineration
3.2.3 Closed Loop Recycled
A closed loop recycled paper system is defined as one in which the same core
pool of paper fibre is used and reused. This should be differentiated from
conventional recycling systems, where the source of the waste paper feedstock
is relatively uncertain. However, with each recycling cycle, there is inevitable
fibre loss (fibres can generally only be recycled up to about six times (1)) and
therefore it is necessary to supplement the closed loop supply with some
additional waste paper fibre.
The closed loop recycled paper supply system modelled in this study
represents recycled paper consumed by HM Government which is produced
in a closed loop recycling system. Sorted office waste (SOW) is sourced from
HM Government Departments in the UK and transported to an integrated
recycled pulp and paper production facility in Germany (2). The SOW
comprises all waste paper produced at HM Government Departments and
includes purchased office paper, as well as some additional waste paper from
received mail.
The facility is a dedicated recycled pulp and paper mill that solely produces
office paper. It is assumed that SOW sourced externally to the closed loop
system, and equating to approximately 10% of the total fibre input, is added to
(1) http://www.paper.org.uk/information/factsheets/recovery_and_recycling.pdf
(2) The closed loop recycled paper currently sourced by HM Government is produced at Steinbeis Mill in Germany.

19
replenish any fibre loss. Externally-sourced SOW is assumed to be sourced
from Germany and transported by road to the closed loop recycled pulp and
paper production facility.
Two closed loop recycled paper production systems are modelled in this
study to represent ‘best-in-class’ and ‘average’ technology as follows.
 Closed Loop Recycled (average): this system refers to closed loop recycled
paper contained in Scenario 1: Business-As-Usual, Scenario 2a: Closed Loop
Recycled (ave), and Scenario 3a: Closed Loop Recycled & Virgin (ave). The pulp
and paper production facility is modelled based on ‘average’ European
technology (1). Energy for the pulp and paper production process is
sourced from a mix of grid electricity, liquid fuels and on-site generation.
On-site energy generation comprises a mix of renewable generation,
comprising hydropower; and co-generation, comprising CHP fuelled by
natural gas and biogenic wastes. It is assumed that 100% of biogenic
 Closed Loop Recycled (best-in-class): this system refers to closed loop
recycled paper that is contained in Scenario 2b: Closed Loop Recycled and
Scenario 3b: Closed Loop Recycled & Virgin. The pulp and paper production
facility is modelled based on ‘best-in-class’ European technology (2). 100%
of the energy for the pulp and paper production process is sourced from
on-site generation, which comprises co-generation (CHP) fuelled by
natural gas and biogenic waste (3). It is assumed that 100% of biogenic
Spent fibres that are not suitable for further recycling are disposed of, as
sludge, to sanitary landfill.
the UK. Upon arrival in the UK, the paper is transported by road to various
UK Government locations in the UK. The road vehicles used to transport the
finished product to the UK returns via the same route, carrying a load of SOW
for use as feedstock in recycling processes at the closed loop mill.
At end of life, the used paper is transported via the same route back to the
closed loop mill.
(1) The Closed Loop Recycled (ave) system is modelled using data for Steinbeis Mill, modified with data from the BREF for
Pulp and Paper to represent an ‘average’ mill. It is assumed that there is no difference between the closed loop and
unclosed loop recycled pulp and paper production system in terms of the operations undertaken at the mill. The Steinbeis
Mill dataset was modified using energy consumption for the production of average recycled paper from the BREF, which
comprises a mix of fossil and renewable sources. This is opposed to the 100% on-site energy generation using ‘best-in-
class’ advanced technology at Steinbeis Mill.
(2) ‘Best-in-Class’ technology is based on operations at Steinbeis Mill in Germany, which currently produces a closed loop
recycled paper product to HMRC. Steinbeis Mill is a recently upgraded facility that uses advanced on-site energy
generation technology.
(3) Clarification on the specific fuels used at Steinbeis Mill for generation of on-site energy was not received. Therefore, the
energy mix modelled for the ‘Best-in-Class’ system in this study was assumed by ERM based on an alternative European
recycled paper mill (confidential data).

20
closed loop recycled paper supply system.
Figure 3.3 Recycled Closed Loop Paper Supply System
pulping chemicals
Pulp
water emissions to water
Production
sorted office waste solid wastes
paper
recycled pulp
papermaking emissions to air
Paper
Production
water solid wastes
primary packaging
road transport
Distribution
emissions to water
Retail
energy and fuels
Use
waste lorry
waste to closed loop
road transport End of Life
recycling
energy and fuels
closed loop recycled paper supply system, including sources and any
manipulations or assumptions, are provided in Annex A Life Cycle Inventory.
3.3 SUMMARY OF SCENARIOS
Table 3.3 provides a summary of the paper supply and waste management
options for each scenario, including a description of the technology type
employed.

21
Table 3.3 Summary of Scenarios
Paper Technology Description Notes

Supply Level
Type
Recycled Average Energy for the pulp and paper production process is sourced from a mix The characteristics for 'average European technology' are assumed based
of grid electricity, liquid fuels and on-site generation. On-site energy on the BREF for Pulp and Paper.
generation (CHP) fuelled by natural gas and biogenic wastes.
Best-in-Class 100% of the energy for the pulp and paper production process is sourced Best-in-Class pulp and paper production is based on operations at
from on-site generation, which comprises co-generation (CHP) fuelled by Steinbeis Mill in Germany, a recently upgraded facility that uses
natural gas and biogenic waste (1). advanced on-site energy generation technology.
Virgin Average Energy for the pulp and paper production process is sourced from a mix The characteristics for 'average European technology' are assumed based
of grid electricity, liquid fuels and on-site generation. On-site energy on the BREF for Pulp and Paper.
generation (CHP) fuelled by fossil fuels and biogenic wastes. The specific
mix of fuels used for on-site energy generation varies according to the
country of production.
from on-site generation, which comprises co-generation (CHP) fuelled by Steinbeis Mill, a recently upgraded facility that uses advanced on-site
natural gas and biogenic waste (1). energy generation technology.
Closed Average Energy for the pulp and paper production process is sourced from a mix The characteristics for 'average European technology' are assumed based
Loop of grid electricity, liquid fuels and on-site generation. On-site energy on the BREF for Pulp and Paper.
Recycled generation comprises a mix of renewable generation (hydro) and co-
generation (CHP) fuelled by natural gas and biogenic wastes.
from on-site generation, which comprises co-generation (CHP) fuelled by Steinbeis Mill, which currently produces a closed loop recycled paper
natural gas and biogenic waste (1). product to HMRC. The mill is a recently upgraded facility that uses
advanced on-site energy generation technology.
(1) Clarification on the specific fuels used at Steinbeis Mill for generation of on-site energy was not received. Therefore, the energy mix modelled for the Closed Loop system in this study was assumed by
ERM based on an alternative European recycled paper mill (confidential data).
4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESULTS
The following section presents the streamlined LCA results for the office
paper supply scenarios. The paper supply systems have been assessed based
on the following environmental impact categories and indicators:
 abiotic depletion;
 global warming;
 cumulative energy demand; and
 water use.
Section 2.2.7 provides a description of the environmental impacts and

indicators listed above. The ReCiPe method is used to calculate the LCA
results. The results presented refer to the following functional units, as
described in Section 2.2.1:
 annual supply of paper to HM Government, comprising 24,000 tonnes of
paper; and
 ‘per tonne’ of paper.
Section 4.1 provides the streamlined LCA results for the different paper supply
system scenarios. A description of the scenarios assessed is provided in Table
3.1 and Table 3.3.
A sensitivity analysis is included in Section 5 to determine the influence of key

variables on the LCA results.
4.1 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 provide a summary of the LCA results by the four
paper production scenarios given in Table 3.1 according to ‘per annum’ and
‘per tonne’.
The following sections provide a further breakdown of the results for each
scenario for the environmental impacts and indicators assessed. Figure 4.1 to
Figure 4.4 provide a graphical representation of the results, broken down by
the key contributors.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA CLOSED LOOP PAPER
23
Table 4.1 LCA Results per annum
Scenario Abiotic Depletion Global Warming Water Use Cumulative Energy

Demand
tonnes Sb-eq kilotonnes (kt) CO2-eq Megalitre (Ml) Terajoules (TJ)
S1 Business-As-Usual 202 29 1397 1136
S2a Closed Loop Recycled (ave) 315 45 234 846
S2b Closed Loop Recycled (BiC) 86 16 137 406
S3a Closed Loop Recycled (ave) + Virgin (ave) 268 39 744 979
S3b Closed Loop Recycled (BiC) + Virgin (ave) 96 17 671 648
S4a Virgin (ave) 126 19 2274 1375
S4b Virgin (BiC) 83 13 2230 1313
S5a Recycled (ave) 302 43 234 818
S5b Recycled (BiC) 71 14 135 372
* 1 kilotonne (kt) = 1000 tonnes
** 1 megalitre (Ml) = 1000 m3
*** 1 terajoule (TJ) = 1000 GJ
Table 4.2 LCA Results per tonne of paper
Scenario Abiotic Depletion Global Warming Water Use Cumulative Energy

Demand
kg Sb-eq tonnes CO2-eq m3 GJ-eq
S1 Business-As-Usual 8.4 1.2 58.2 47.3
S2a Closed Loop Recycled (ave) 13.1 1.9 9.8 35.3
S2b Closed Loop Recycled (BiC) 3.6 0.7 5.7 16.9
S3a Closed Loop Recycled (ave) + Virgin (ave) 11.2 1.6 31.0 40.8
S3b Closed Loop Recycled (BiC) + Virgin (ave) 3.9 0.7 28.0 27.0
S4a Virgin (ave) 5.3 0.8 94.7 57.3
S4b Virgin (BiC) 3.5 0.6 92.9 54.7
S5a Recycled (ave) 12.6 1.8 9.8 34.1
S5b Recycled (BiC) 3.0 0.6 5.6 15.5
The following is evident from the results presented in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2.
‘Average’ production results in greater abiotic depletion and global warming impacts
than ‘BiC’ production.
 Scenario 2a: Closed Loop Recycled (average) has the greatest impact from
abiotic depletion and global warming of the scenarios assessed, resulting
in 315 t Sb-eq and 45 kt CO2-eq ‘per annum’ (13 kg Sb-eq and 1.9 tonnes
CO2-eq ‘per tonne’). Impacts from abiotic depletion and global warming
are largely associated with the relatively high use of fossil fuels in the
‘average’ production of recycled pulp and paper. The impact for Scenario
2a: Closed Loop Recycled (average) is slightly greater than for Scenario 5a:
Recycled (average) due to additional fossil fuel consumption from the
greater transport distances for the closed loop system – mainland Europe
compared with UK.
 The Best-in-Class scenarios have the lowest impact from abiotic depletion
and global warming of the scenarios assessed, all resulting in relatively
similar impacts. ‘BiC’ is lower than ‘average’ due to low use of fossil fuels
in ‘best-in-class’ production of pulp and paper. Scenario 5b: Recycled (BiC)
has the lowest abiotic depletion impact, resulting in 71 t Sb-eq ‘per annum’
(3 kg Sb-eq ‘per tonne’), whereas Scenario 4b: Virgin (BiC) has the lowest
global warming impact, resulting in 14 kt CO2-eq ‘per annum’ (0.6 tonnes
CO2-eq ‘per tonne’).
‘Average’ production results in higher water demand that ‘BiC’ production
 Scenario 4a: Virgin (average) has the greatest water demand of the scenarios
assessed, resulting in 2,274 Ml ‘per annum’ and 94.7 m3 ‘per tonne’. The
greater water demand for ‘average’ production when compared with
‘best-in-class’ production is due to the higher consumption of fossil fuels.
 Scenario 5b: Recycled (BiC) has the lowest water demand of the scenarios
assessed, resulting in 135 Ml ‘per annum’ (5.6 m3 ‘per tonne’). The low
water demand is associated with the low use of fossil fuels in the ‘best-in-
class’ production of pulp and paper. The water demand for recycled (BiC)
is slightly lower than for closed loop recycled (BiC) due to lower fuel
consumption for the shorter transport distance of incoming fibre.
‘Average’ production results in higher cumulative energy demand (CED) than ‘BiC’
production
 Scenario 4a: Virgin (average) has the greatest CED of the scenarios assessed,
resulting in 1,375 TJ ‘per annum’ (57.3 GJ ‘per tonne’). 79% of the CED is
renewable energy, the majority of which is embodied in the biogenic
virgin material.
 Scenario 5b: Recycled (BiC) has the lowest CED of the scenarios assessed,
resulting in 135 TJ ‘per annum’ (5.6 GJ ‘per tonne’). The low CED is
associated with the relatively low consumption of fossil fuels for ‘best-in-
class’ production of pulp and paper.
25
4.2 BREAKDOWN OF LCA RESULTS
The following section provides a breakdown of the LCA results, providing

further detail by each environmental impact or environmental indicator.
4.2.1 Abiotic Depletion
Figure 4.1 provides a breakdown of the LCA results for abiotic depletion,
indicating the key contributors to the total impact results.
 Scenario 2a: Recycled Closed Loop (average) has the greatest abiotic depletion
impact, resulting in 13.1 kg Sb-eq per tonne of paper. The majority of the
impact is from energy, accounting for 87% of the total, which is due to the
relatively high proportion of fossil fuels used in the ‘average’ European
mix.
 Scenario 5b: Recycled (BiC) has the lowest resource depletion impact,
resulting in 3.0 kg Sb-eq per tonne of paper. The comparatively low
resource depletion impacts for Scenario 5b are due to the low proportion of
fossil fuels used in the ‘Best-in-Class’ European mix.
 In general, scenarios representing ‘average’ production result in a greater
abiotic depletion impact than those representing ‘best-in-class’ production.
 Scenarios representing virgin paper (Scenarios 4a and 4b) are generally
lower than scenarios representing recycled and closed loop recycled paper.
This is particularly noticeable when comparing the ‘average’ production
scenarios. The reason for this is that ‘average’ European virgin paper
production, as modelled in this study, comprises a partially integrated mill
that makes use of on-site energy generation. Integration between pulp
and paper production results in a more energy efficient process, which
reduces the energy requirement per tonne of paper. On-site energy
generation makes use of waste wood and pulping residues which reduces
the need for fossil fuel combustion. Both these factors are influential in
reducing abiotic depletion impacts.
26
Figure 4.1 LCA Results of Office Paper Supply Scenarios – Abiotic Depletion (kg Sb-eq per tonne)
14.0
12.0
10.0
kg Sb‐eq per tonne of office paper
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
‐
Business‐As‐Usual Closed Loop Closed Loop Closed Loop Closed Loop Virgin (ave) Virgin (BiC) Recycled (ave) Recycled (BiC)
Recycled (ave) Recycled (BiC) Recycled (ave) + Recycled (BiC) +
Virgin (ave) Virgin (ave)
 As shown in Figure 4.1, energy is a key contributor to resource depletion
across all the scenarios assessed, accounting for 52% to 90% of the total
impacts for ‘average’ production and 29% to 43% of total impacts for ‘best-
in-class’ production. The abiotic depletion impact from energy is
associated with the combustion of fossil fuels. Therefore, the ‘best-in-class’
scenarios (Scenario 2b, Scenario 3b, Scenario 4b and Scenario 5b), which are
characterised by a low proportion of fossil fuels in the energy mix,
consequently have a much lower abiotic depletion impact from energy.
 Transport is a relatively important contributor to abiotic depletion across
all the scenarios assessed, accounting for between 6% and 38% of the total
impacts. Abiotic depletion impacts for transport are associated with the
combustion of fossil-based fuels (eg diesel).
 Impacts from transport are greater in absolute terms for the closed loop
scenarios: 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b due to the longer transport distances associated
with the closed loop system. In terms of relative importance to the overall
impact, transport has a greater effect on the four BiC scenarios (Scenarios
2b, 3b, 4b and 5b), as it makes up a greater proportion.
4.2.2 Global Warming Potential (GWP)
Figure 4.2 provides a breakdown of the LCA results for global warming
potential, indicating the key contributors to the total impact results.
 Scenario 2a: Closed Loop Recycled (ave) has the greatest GWP, resulting in
1.9 t CO2-eq per tonne of paper. The majority of the impact is from energy,
accounting for 80% of the total, which is due to the relatively high
proportion of fossil fuels used in the ‘average’ European mix.
 Scenario 4b: Virgin (BiC) has the lowest GWP, resulting in 0.55 t CO2-eq per
tonne of paper. The majority of the impact is from transport, accounting
for 31% of the total. Energy is also an important contributor to GWP,
accounting for 30% of the total. However, the contribution from energy to
global warming potential is lower than for other paper supply systems
due to the low proportion of fossil fuels in the energy mix for ‘Best-in-
Class’ European technology. The GWP from energy and transport are
both due to the combustion of fossil fuels.
GWP impact than those representing ‘best-in-class’ production.
28
Figure 4.2 LCA Results of Office Paper Supply Scenarios – Global Warming Potential (tonnes CO2-eq per tonne)
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
t CO2‐eq per tonne of office paper
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
‐
Fibre input to External pulp Waste

Fillers Chemicals Transport Energy
pulping input treatment
 Scenarios representing virgin paper (Scenarios 4a and 4b) generally have a
lower impact than scenarios representing recycled and closed loop
recycled paper. This is particularly noticeable when comparing the
‘average’ production scenarios. The reason for this is that ‘average’
European virgin paper production, as modelled in this study, comprises a
partially-integrated mill that makes use of on-site energy generation.
Integration between pulp and paper production results in a more energy
efficient process, which reduces the energy requirement per tonne of
paper. On-site energy generation makes use of waste wood and pulping
residues which reduces the need for fossil fuel combustion. Both these
factors are influential in reducing global warming impacts.
 As shown in Figure 4.2, energy is a significant contributor to GWP across
all the scenarios assessed, accounting for 49% to 84% of the total impacts
for ‘average’ production and 25% to 31% of total impacts for ‘best-in-class’
production. The GWP impact from energy is associated with the
combustion of fossil fuels. Therefore, the ‘best-in-class’ scenarios (Scenario
2b, 3b, 4b and 5b), which are characterised by a low proportion of fossil
fuels in the energy mix, consequently have a much lower GWP impact
from energy.
 There is relatively little difference in the GWP impact between the
scenarios representing ‘Best-in-Class’ virgin (Scenario 4b) and recycled
(Scenario 5b) paper, which resulted in 0.53 kg CO2-eq and 0.58 kg CO2-eq
per tonne, respectively. The impacts for the scenarios representing ‘Best-
in-Class’ closed loop recycled paper (Scenario 2b and 3b) are slightly higher
due to the greater transport distances associated with the closed loop
system. The additional impact from increased transport distances for the
closed loop system equate to an increase in GWP of approximately 25%.
 Transport is a relatively important contributor to GWP across all the
scenarios assessed, accounting for between 7% and 36% of the total
impacts. GWP impacts from transport are associated with the combustion
of fossil-based fuels (eg diesel).
 As with abiotic depletion, the impacts from transport are greater in
absolute terms for the closed loop scenarios 2sm 2b, 3a and 3b due to the
longer transport distances associated with the closed loop system. Once
again, transport has a greater effect on the four BiC scenarios (Scenarios 2b,
3b, 4b and 5b), in terms of relative importance to the overall impact as it
makes up a greater proportion.
 Waste treatment is a relatively important contributor to the GWP impacts
for the scenarios including the ‘Best-in-Class’ production of recycled paper
(Scenario 2b, Scenario 3b and Scenario 5b), accounting for 17% to 26% of the
total. The impact is due to the treatment of large quantities of waste
sludge. The high proportion of waste sludge in the ‘Best-in-Class’ recycled
paper systems modelled relates to information regarding a specific mill
(Steinbeis Mill, Germany).
30
4.2.3 Water Use
Figure 4.3 provides a breakdown of the LCA results for water use over the life
cycle, indicating where the key contributions are made.
 Scenario 4a: Recycled Virgin (average) is shown to have the greatest water
consumption, resulting in 94.7 m3 per tonne of paper. The majority of the
water demand is associated with the production of virgin feedstock,
accounting for 91% of the total.
 Scenario 2b: Recycled Closed Loop (BiC) has the lowest water consumption,
resulting in 5.6 m3 per tonne of paper. The lower water consumption is
attributable to the low consumption of fossil fuels in the ‘Best-in-Class’
energy mix.
GWP impact than those representing ‘best-in-class’ production.
 Chemicals used for pulp and paper production contribute significantly to
water use across all the scenarios assessed, accounting for 6% to 77% of the
total. The chemicals used for the production of virgin paper result in a
greater water demand than those used for the production of recycled
paper.
 Transport does not account for significant water use for any of the
scenarios assessed.
31
Figure 4.3 LCA Results of Office Paper Supply Scenarios – Water Use (m3 per tonne)
100
90
80
70
m3 per tonne of office paper
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

4.2.4 Cumulative Energy Demand
Figure 4.4 provides a breakdown of the LCA results for cumulative energy
demand over the life cycle, indicating where the key contributions are made.
 Scenario 4a: Virgin (average) is shown to have the greatest cumulative
energy demand, resulting in 57.3 MJ per tonne of paper. The majority of
the cumulative energy demand is attributable to the energy itself,
embodied in fossil fuels used for the production of pulp and paper. The
greater energy demand is associated with the relatively high production of
fossil fuel based energy for ‘average’ European production.
 Scenario 2b: Closed Loop Recycled (BiC) has the lowest cumulative energy
demand, resulting in 15.5 MJ per tonne of paper. The cumulative energy
demand for ‘Best-in-Class’ scenarios is lower when compared with
‘average’ scenarios, due to the improved energy efficiency in the pulp and
paper production process. Furthermore, embodied energy in fuels used
for pulp and paper production is lower due to the low proportion of fossil
fuels in the ‘Best-in-Class’ energy mix.
 Energy is a significant contributor to cumulative energy demand across all
the scenarios with the exception of virgin, which is represented by a
relatively high proportion of non-renewable energy. The extraction of
non-renewable energy and fuels is associated with high embodied energy.
 Production of virgin fibre contributes most significantly to CED for
scenarios with virgin content. The majority of this is categorised as
renewable energy embodied in the biogenic material.
 Transport contributes a moderate proportion to the cumulative energy
demand for the scenarios assessed. The embodied energy is associated
with the energy required to extract and refine fuels for transport.
Nonetheless, as with GWP, transport has a greater effect on the four BiC
scenarios (Scenarios 2b, 3b, 4b and 5b), in terms of relative importance to the
overall impact, as it provides a greater proportion of the whole.
33
Figure 4.4 LCA Results of Office Paper Supply Scenarios – Cumulative Energy Demand (GJ-eq per tonne)
60
50
40
GJ‐eq per tonne of office paper
30
20
10
‐

4.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The following provides a summary of the key findings from the results of the
streamlined LCA.
 In general, the office paper supply scenarios representing ‘best-in-class’
production perform better than those representing ‘average’ production.
The key reasons for this are the low fossil fuel content in the energy mix
and the energy efficiency of the production process. However, there is
some uncertainty with regard to the actual fuels used at the mill that the
‘best-in-class’ technology is based on. It is possible that the energy mix in
practice is comprised of a higher proportion of fossil fuels, which would
impact negatively on the environmental performance of ‘best-in-class’
scenarios. In lieu of more accurate data on the German mill, another
European mill similar in nature has been used to model the scenario.
 When considering the ‘best-in-class’ scenarios, there is very little difference
in the performance of virgin, recycled or closed loop recycled paper. This
demonstrates that when the impacts from energy are reduced, due to the
use of low impact fuels, the different paper types can deliver essentially
the same performance, taking account of site-specific differences and the
quality of data.
 Energy makes a key contribution to all of the scenarios, across all
environmental impacts and indicators assessed. This is largely attributable
to the combustion of fossil fuels.
 Transport is a key contributor to abiotic depletion and global warming
impacts of all scenarios. Transport has a greater influence on the best in
class scenarios, due to the energy contribution to environmental impacts
being lower. Moreover, it is greater in absolute terms for the closed loop
scenarios that have assumed transport to mainland Europe for recycling,
rather than recycling in the UK.
 Chemicals used for pulp and paper production are a key contributor to
overall water consumption for all the scenarios. Chemicals for virgin
paper production have a greater water demand than those for recycled
paper production.
 Embodied energy in fossil fuels used for transport and for the production
of pulp and paper accounts for the major proportion of cumulative energy
demand across all the scenarios.
The next section presents some sensitivity analyses that further test the figures
and results presented in the streamlined LCA.
35
5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
Due to the nature of the study, it was deemed important to perform some
sensitivity analyses of the results to test any variance in the major contributors
to the environmental impacts - primary energy sources and transport
distances. Hence, three sensitivity analyses of the results were undertaken.
These focus on the following:
 changes in transport distances for distribution of the finished paper
production HM Government; and
5.1 TRANSPORT DISTANCES – LOCAL SOURCING OF FIBRE INPUTS
The key transport stages in the life cycle of the paper production systems were
investigated to indicate the significance of the mill location with regard to the
overall environmental impacts.
For this sensitivity analysis, it was assumed that all fibre inputs (ie wood for
virgin and SOW for recycled and closed loop recycled) were sourced locally to
the pulp and paper production facility. A ‘local’ distance is defined as 200 km.
The incoming transport distances assumed in the original LCI data are
provided in Table 5.1. For the original LCI data, it was assumed that fibre
feedstock is sourced within the country of production for recycled and virgin
paper supply systems. The closed loop recycled feedstock is sourced from the
UK and transported to Germany.
Table 5.1 Original Analysis’ Incoming transport Distances of Fibre Input to Pulp &
Paper Production
Scenario Transport Stage 1 Transport Stage 2 Transport Stage 3

road sea road
Recycled 300 km - -
Virgin 100 km - -
Closed Loop Recycled 300 km 47 km 805 km
Figure 5.1 to Figure 5.4 show a comparison of the LCA results for each scenario
and the impact of local sourcing of fibre inputs. The following is evident from
the results of the sensitivity analysis.
 Reducing incoming transport distance for fibre inputs reduces the impact
of Scenario 2a and 2b: Closed Loop Recycled.
 Scenario 1 and Scenario 3a and b contain only a proportion of closed loop
recycled paper, with other paper types (recycled or virgin) accounting for
36
the remainder. For these scenarios, the impact of reducing incoming
transport distance is shown to be less. This is due to the impacts of other
factors, such as energy consumption, being more significant to the overall
impact, which consequently overshadows any benefit from reduced
incoming transport distances.
Scenario 1: Business-As-Usual, Scenario 4a&b: Virgin and Scenario 5a&b: Recycled
An incoming transport distance of 200 km for fibre input does not make a
significant difference to the environmental impact results for Scenario 1, 4 or 5
for any of the environmental impacts or indicators assessed.
Scenario 1 comprises a mix of recycled, virgin and closed loop recycled paper,
of which recycled and virgin make up the most significant proportions.
Closed loop recycled paper accounts for only 3% of the paper supply.
Scenario 4 is comprised of virgin paper only, and Scenario 5 is comprised of
recycled paper only.
For both recycled and virgin paper, is was assumed in the original LCI data
that fibre input was locally sourced, represented as 300 km and 100 km
respectively. Therefore, varying the incoming transport distance to 200 km
does not make a discernible difference to the results.
Scenario 2a&b: Closed Loop Recycled
An incoming transport distance of 200 km for fibre input makes a significant

difference to the environmental impact results for Scenario 2 which contains
only closed loop recycled paper, manufactured by ‘best-in-class’ technology.
Given that fibre input to the closed loop recycled paper system requires long
transport distances from the UK to Germany, reducing these distances to
represent local sourcing significantly reduces the impacts.
 Abiotic depletion is reduced by 10%.
 Global warming potential (GWP) is reduced by 10%.
 Cumulative energy demand is reduced by 3-5%.
 There is no significant impact on water use.
37
Figure 5.1 Sensitivity Analysis of Transport Distances – Local Sourcing of Fibre Inputs:
Abiotic Depletion
14
12
10
S1 ‐ Baseline S3a ‐ Baseline S4b ‐ Baseline

S1 ‐ Local source S3a ‐ Local source S4b ‐ Local source
S2a ‐ Baseline S3b ‐ Baseline S5a ‐ Baseline
S2a ‐ Local source S3b ‐ Local source S5a ‐ Local source
S2b ‐ Baseline S4a ‐ Baseline S5b ‐ Baseline
S2b ‐ Local source S4a ‐ Local source S5b ‐ Local source
Global Warming
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00

38
Water Use
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

Cumulative Energy Demand
60
50
MJ‐eq per tonne of office paper
40
30
20
10

39
Scenario 3a&b: Closed Loop Recycled & Virgin
An incoming transport distance of 200 km for fibre input does not make a
discernible difference to the environmental impact results for Scenario 3a:
Closed Recycled & Virgin (ave). Although Scenario 3 is comprised mostly of
closed loop recycled paper and there is a benefit from reducing the incoming
distance for fibre input, this is overshadowed by other impacts associated with
‘average’ technology, namely energy consumption. This demonstrates that,
although impacts from transport distances can be significant, other factors,
namely energy, are likely to have more influence on the total results.
However, when considering Scenario 3b: Closed Loop Recycled & Virgin (BiC),
which is influenced less by the combustion of fossil fuels, it can be seen that
the reduced transport distance from local sourcing of SOW makes a difference
to the environmental performance across impacts and indicators.
5.2 TRANSPORT DISTANCES – LOCAL DISTRIBUTION
For this sensitivity analysis, it was assumed that the finished paper product is
distributed 200 km, instead of being transported long distances from different
countries.
The outgoing transport distances assumed in the original LCI data are
provided in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 Original Analysis’ Outgoing Transport Distances Finished Paper
Scenario Transport Stage 1 Transport Stage 2 Transport Stage 3

road sea road
Recycled 480 km 47 km 300 km
Virgin – Scandinavia: Finland 230 km 1870 km 300 km
Virgin – Scandinavia: Norway 81 km 1503 km 300 km
Virgin – Scandinavia: Sweden 442 km 926 km 300 km
Virgin – Iberian Peninsula: Portugal 20 km 1444 km 300 km
Virgin – Iberian Peninsula: Spain 50 km 998 km 300 km
Virgin - Russia 968 km 1648 km 300 km
Closed loop recycled 805 km 47 km 300 km
Figure 5.5 to Figure 5.8 show a comparison of the LCA results for each scenario
and the impact of local sourcing of fibre inputs.
40
Figure 5.5 Sensitivity Analysis of Transport Distances – Local Distribution of Finished
Paper Product: Abiotic Depletion
14
12
10

S1 ‐ Local distribution S3a ‐ Local distribution S4b ‐ Local distribution
S2a ‐ Local distribution S3b ‐ Local distribution S5a ‐ Local distribution
S2b ‐ Local distribution S4a ‐ Local distribution S5b ‐ Local distribution

Paper Product: Global Warming
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00

41
Paper Product: Water Use
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10


Paper Product: Cumulative Energy Demand
60
50
MJ‐eq per tonne of offcie paper
40
30
20
10

The following is evident from the results of the sensitivity analysis.

 Reducing distribution distance has an impact across all the scenarios for
abiotic depletion, global warming potential and cumulative energy
demand as follows:
o a decrease in resource depletion of 7-15%;
42
o a decrease in global warming potential of 8-13%; and
o a decrease in cumulative energy demand of 2-6%.
 Reducing distribution distance does not have a significant impact on water
use for any of the scenarios assessed.
5.3 ENERGY SOURCES
The energy mix for the pulp and paper production processes was investigated
to identify its significance with regard to overall environmental impacts.
The environmental impacts that result from energy consumption can vary
considerably, depending on the energy source (eg electricity, natural gas,
hydro power). Various mixes of energy source might be used at pulp and
paper mills in Europe, and these are likely to result in different environmental
impacts. Therefore, the streamlined LCA results presented in the sections
above were further investigated to identify the potential variation in
environmental impacts when different energy/ fuel sources were employed.
The paper production systems were defined and modelled to represent the
potential high-low extremes in environmental impacts as follows.
 Recycled – high fossil fuel: a high proportion of fossil fuels (eg natural gas,
coal) in the energy mix results in higher environmental impacts. This is
modelled based on data for average European production from the BREF
for pulp and paper.
 Recycled – low fossil fuel: replacement of fossil fuels with a non-fossil
based fuel (eg biomass) results in lower environmental impacts. This is
modelled based on total energy consumption data for average European
production if recycled paper from the BREF for pulp and paper. The fuels
are assumed based on the mix at a European paper mill known to use a low
fossil fuel mix (confidential data).
 Virgin – high fossil fuel: a high proportion of fossil fuels (eg natural gas,
coal) in the energy mix results in higher environmental impacts. This is
modelled based on total energy consumption data for average European
production of virgin paper from the BREF for pulp and paper. The energy
sources are assumed based on average fuel mixes for the countries in each
region assessed (Scandinavia, Iberian Peninsula, Russia).
 Virgin – low fossil fuel: replacement of fossil fuels with a non-fossil based
fuel (eg biomass) results in lower environmental impacts. This is modelled
based on total energy consumption data for average European production
of virgin paper from the BREF for pulp and paper. The fuels are assumed
based on the mix at a European paper mill known to use a low fossil fuel
mix (confidential data). Figure 5.9 shows the potential variation in the LCA
results for individual paper supply systems based on high-low fossil fuel
consumption as the energy source for pulp and paper production.
43
Figure 5.9 Sensitivity Analysis of Energy Source – by Paper Production System
120%
100%
80%
60%
%
40%
20%
0%
Abiotic depletion Climate change Water depletion Energy
Recycled ‐ high fossil fuel Virgin ‐ high fossil fuel
Recycled ‐ low fossil fuel Virgin ‐ low fossil fuel
Figure 5.9 shows that high fossil fuel consumption in the energy mix results in
greater impacts across all environmental indicators. The energy consumption
itself remains constant between high-low fossil fuel variants, showing that the
types of fuel used and the specific mix has the potential substantially to vary
the overall result. Clearly, carbon-intensive sources such as coal and gas, as
used in the UK’s national grid network, will contribute more to climate
change impacts than other, renewable sources.
44
6 INTERPRETATION
6.1 RECYCLED VS VIRGIN PAPER
The results of the streamlined LCA show that the environmental impacts from
recycled paper can be greater than those for virgin paper if average
technology is used. The majority of the impact for both recycled and virgin
paper is attributable to the combustion of fossil fuels for pulp and paper
production.
Further investigation of the impacts from energy through the sensitivity

analysis described in Section 5.3 demonstrated that the overall environmental
impact of the paper systems varies considerably, depending on the specific
energy and fuel sources used. Indeed, if best in class technology is used,
incorporating lower fossil fuel content energy, then the impacts from virgin
and recycled paper are broadly similar.
The influence of the fibre input to recycled or virgin systems is shown to be

relatively low when compared with other contributors. The contribution from
the timber production is not a significant component of the overall life cycle
impacts.
Therefore, the implication is that, for the environmental indicators considered,

there is no clear advantage or disadvantage to using waste paper fibre
feedstock over virgin wood. Rather, specific processes of the paper system as
a whole, and in particular its energy sources, have a greater influence on life
cycle impacts.
There are other, wider, implications to consider when comparing virgin and
recycled sources of paper that were beyond the scope of this study, such as
woodland biodiversity and diverting waste paper from landfill. It was
assumed for this study that all Government paper is recycled.
6.2 BEST IN CLASS PRODUCTION VS AVERAGE
The streamlined LCA results show that the ‘best-in-class’ scenarios perform
better across all environmental impacts and indicators. However, the
assumptions made regarding ‘best-in-class’ technology are the key influencing
factor in determining this low environmental impact. In particular, the
advanced on-site energy generation plant, which makes use of a biogenic
waste as a significant proportion as its fuel, reduces the significance of energy
consumption on the total life cycle.
Indeed, there is still some uncertainty regarding the type of fuel used for on-
site energy generation at the best-in-class closed loop recycled mill. This will
have an effect on the results and should be taken into account when assessing
45
the environmental merits of closed loop recycling (based on this one mill)
versus otherwise conventional paper recycling. This has been taken into
account in the sensitivity analysis, wherein tests were carried out on high and
low fossil fuel content energy mixes.
6.3 CONVENTIONAL RECYCLING VS CLOSED LOOP RECYCLING
It is important to note that the actual manufacturing processes involved in

recycling waste paper are the same regardless of whether or not they are in a
closed loop system. Whilst for Scenario 5b: Recycled (BiC) a conventional
recycling system using best-in-class efficiency and fuel mix was modelled, the
only difference to Scenario 2b: Closed Loop Recycled (BiC) was the transport
element. This results in the impacts for Scenario 5b being largely similar to
those of the Scenario 2b. The key difference between the two is the incoming
transport of SOW.
With regard to the scenarios assessed in this study, SOW for conventional
recycled paper is assumed to be sourced within the same country as the paper
production facility, whereas the closed loop SOW is sourced from a much
greater distance. Based on these assumptions, Scenario 5b (conventional
recycled paper produced at the best-in-class mill) results in lower
environmental impacts than does the closed loop recycled paper system. This
is due to the shorter transport distances involved.
However, should the SOW source for the closed loop system also be located
within the same country as paper production, it is likely that the
environmental impacts would be the same as for conventional recycled paper
produced at the same best-in-class mill.
46
7 CONCLUSIONS
There is no simple conclusion that can be drawn to indicate which paper

system is the best in terms of environmental performance. The best
performing system might range widely, and will be dependent on the precise
details of what is implemented in practice. In particular, environmental
performance varies depending on the energy source used in the pulp and
paper mills.
Nonetheless, the study’s main conclusions can be summarised as follows.

 The key factor that influences the environmental performance of paper
systems is the energy source for pulp and paper making.
 Paper production systems that make use of renewable energy, such as
hydropower or combustion of biogenic wastes, result in a better
environmental performance, due to the avoidance of fossil fuel
combustion.
 Paper production systems that generate heat and power on-site, rather
than purchase electricity from the grid, are likely to result in a better
environmental performance.
 Transport is less significant a driver of environmental performance than
energy consumption, but efficient routes and vehicle choices will reduce
environmental impacts.
 Closed loop recycling systems produce paper using exactly the same
production process as conventional recycled paper systems. The key
difference is from transport. If closed loop and non-closed loop systems
are compared, care should be taken to include both differences in transport
distances and in the fuel used in the recycling processes.
 A best-in-class integrated recycled paper mill with on-site CHP fuelled by
non-fossil fuels (eg biomass) and that is located in relatively close
proximity to waste paper source and to its customers presents the most
favourable option in terms of overall environmental impacts.
 To ensure low impact recycled paper, there is a need to specify energy
efficiency characteristics and energy sources for paper producers. It is
recommended that purchasing specifications for paper take more account
of the energy sources consumed in production.
47
8 REFERENCES
Full life cycle inventory (LCI) data are provided in Annex A of this report.
1. CEPI (2006) ’Looking good in print: CHP and the use of biomass in the
European pulp and paper industry,’
http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/280
234/articles/cogeneration-and-on-site-power-production/volume-
7/issue-6/features/looking-good-in-print-chp-and-the-use-of-biomass-in-
the-european-pulp-and-paper-industry.html
2. DEFRA 2008, Municipal Waste Statistics 2007/8, available from:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats/bull
etin08.htm
3. Ecoinvent version 2.01
4. EC (2001), Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Pulp and

Paper Industry (referred to as BREF for Pulp and Paper). European
Commission, December 2001. Available at:
http://eippcb.jrc.es/reference/pp.html
5. EC (2009), Municipal waste generated, kg per capita. European Commission.

Available at:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/data/sector
s/municipal_waste
6. ISO 14040:2006, Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment –

Principles and Framework
7. ISO 14044:2006, Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment –

Requirements and Guidelines
8. WRAP 2002, Analysis of household waste composition and factors driving waste
increases, Dr. J. Parfitt, WRAP, December 2002.
48
Annex A
Life Cycle Inventory Data

APRIL 2011
A1 SCENARIO DATA
Table 1.1 provides a description of the scenarios assessed in the LCA.
Table 1.1 Description of Paper Supply Scenarios
Scenario Scenario Name Paper Supply and Technology Option Waste Management Option
Number
1 Business-As-Usual (BAU)
2a Recycled Closed Loop (ave)

2b Recycled Closed Loop (BiC)

3a Recycled Closed Loop (ave) and Virgin (ave)

3b Recycled Closed Loop (BiC) and Virgin (ave)

4a Virgin (ave)
4b Virgin (BiC)
100% Virgin (best-in-class) 100% recycled in UK
5a Recycled (ave)
5b Recycled (BiC)
100% Recycled (best-in-class) 100% recycled in UK
Scenario specifications were provided by DEFRA, based on estimated consumption of office paper in the UK in 2010.
A2 PAPER SUPPLY SYSTEM DATA
Scenarios 1 to 5, as described in Table 1.1, are comprised of different combinations of three different paper supply systems. The
following sections provide a life cycle inventory data for the paper supply systems assessed.
The paper supply systems that make up the scenarios have been defined to represent ‘typical’ European production. However,
there can be considerable variation in the operation from mill to mill, which can influence the environmental performance of the
paper produced. Based on previous published studies on paper production, it is known that energy consumption from the pulp
and paper making processes accounts for a considerable proportion of the impact. Therefore, in order to identify the likely range
in the environmental performance of the paper supply scenarios, they are further sub-divided in terms of ‘average’ and ‘best-in-
class’ technology.
A2.1 RECYCLED
A2.1.1 Pulp Production and Paper Making
Two recycled paper production systems are modelled in this study to represent ‘best-in-class’ and ‘average’ technology, as
follows.
 Recycled (average): this system refers to recycled paper contained in Scenario 1: Business-As-Usual and Scenario 5a: Recycled
(ave). The pulp and paper production facility is modelled based on ‘average’ European technology (1). Energy for the pulp
and paper production process is sourced from a mix of grid electricity, liquid fuels and on-site generation. On-site energy
generation comprises a mix of renewable generation, comprising hydropower; and co-generation, comprising Combined
Heat & Power (CHP) fuelled by natural gas and biogenic wastes.
 Recycled (best-in-class): This system refers to recycled paper that is contained in Scenario 5b: Recycled (BiC). The pulp and
paper production facility is modelled based on ‘best-in-class’ European technology (2). 100% of the energy for the pulp and
(1) The characteristics for 'average European technology' are assumed based on the BREF for Pulp and Paper.
(2) ‘Best-in-Class’ technology is based on operations at Steinbeis Mill in Germany, which currently produces a closed loop recycled paper product to HMRC. Steinbeis Mill is a recently upgraded facility
that uses advanced on-site energy generation technology.
paper production process is sourced from on-site generation, which comprises co-generation (CHP) fuelled by natural gas
and biogenic waste (1).
The facility is a dedicated recycled pulp and paper mill that produces solely office paper.
Table 2.1 Recycled (average) - Pulp and Paper Production Data
Unit Data per tonne of Comments / Sources

paper
Fibre inputs
Post-consumer kg 1,270 Source: Bref, Table 5.3, maximum value of range, assuming no virgin inputs.
paper
Waste paper, mixed, from public collection, for further treatment/RER U, modified to remove any
transport
Chemicals inputs
Kaolin kg 21.23 Source: Total additive inputs from Bref, Table 5.3, adapted per chemical using EcoInvent “Paper,
recycling, with deinking, at plant/RER U”
Kaolin, at plant/RER SNI
Aluminium kg 3.41 Source: Total additive inputs from Bref, Table 5.3, adapted per chemical using EcoInvent “Paper,
Sulphate recycling, with deinking, at plant/RER U”
Aluminium sulphate, powder, at plant/RER SNI
Starch kg 11.13 Source: Total additive inputs from Bref, Table 5.3, adapted per chemical using EcoInvent “Paper,
Potato starch, at plant/DE SNI
Sodium Hydroxide kg 3.37 Source: Total additive inputs from Bref, Table 5.3, adapted per chemical using EcoInvent “Paper,
Sodium hydroxide, 50% in H2O, production mix, at plant/RER SNI
Sodium Silicate kg 2.68 Source: Total additive inputs from Bref, Table 5.3, adapted per chemical using EcoInvent “Paper,
Sodium silicate, spray powder 80%, at plant/RER SNI
(1) Clarification on the specific fuels utilised at Steinbeis Mill for generation of on-site energy was not received. Therefore, the energy mix modelled for the ‘Best-in-Class’ system in this study was
assumed by ERM based on an alternative European recycled paper mill (confidential data).
paper
Hydrogen kg 4.52 Source: Total additive inputs from Bref, Table 5.3, adapted per chemical using EcoInvent “Paper,
Peroxide recycling, with deinking, at plant/RER U”
Hydrogen peroxide, 50% in H2O, at plant/RER SNI
Rosin Size kg 5.25 Source: Total additive inputs from Bref, Table 5.3, adapted per chemical using EcoInvent “Paper,
Rosin size, in paper production, at plant/RER SNI
Chemicals, kg 1.59 Source: Total additive inputs from Bref, Table 5.3, adapted per chemical using EcoInvent “Paper,
unspecified recycling, with deinking, at plant/RER U”
Chemicals inorganic, at plant/GLO SNI
Pigments kg 30 Source: Bref, Table 5.3
Pigments, paper production, unspecified, at plant/RER SNI
Water
In m3 19.95 Source: Bref, Table 5.3
19.34 m3 from Water, surface, 0.61 m3 from Water, well, in ground
Out m3 10.56 Source: Bref, Table 5.3
Disposal, sludge from pulp and paper production, 25% water, to sanitary landfill/CH SNI
Evaporated m3 9.39 Assumption
Energy
Grid electricity kWh 1,759 Average of energy use from Bref Table 5.2 & 5.3, allocated to electricity using CEPI data
http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/280234/articles/cogeneration-
and-on-site-power-production/volume-7/issue-6/features/looking-good-in-print-chp-and-the-use-
of-biomass-in-the-european-pulp-and-paper-industry.html
Electricity, high voltage, production RER, at grid/RER SNI
Fuel Oil, light kWh 20 Average of energy use from Bref Table 5.2 & 5.3, allocated to light fuel oil using CEPI data
Heat, light fuel oil, at industrial furnace 1MW/RER SNI

paper
Fuel Oil, heavy kWh 152 Average of energy use from Bref Table 5.2 & 5.3, allocated to heavy fuel oil using CEPI data
Heat, heavy fuel oil, at industrial furnace 1MW/RER SNI
Hydro power kWh 25 Average of energy use from Bref Table 5.2 & 5.3, allocated to hydro power electricity using CEPI data
Electricity, hydropower, at power plant/SE SNI
CHP - Biomass kWh 258 Average of energy use from Bref Table 5.2 & 5.3, allocated to biomass CHP using CEPI data
Allocated totally to heat production as it will capture all emissions related to combustion of fuels
Heat, at cogen 6400kWth, wood, emission control, allocation heat /CH SNI
CHP – Natural Gas kWh 871 Average of energy use from Bref Table 5.2 & 5.3, allocated to natural gas CHP using CEPI data
Heat, at cogen 1MWe lean burn, allocation heat/CH SNI
Outputs
Recycled Paper kg 1,000
Ash to landspread- kg 90.8 Data Source: Bref, Table 5.3

ing
Disposal, ash from paper production sludge, 0% water, to residual material landfill/CH SNI
Reject Paper, kg 100.2 Data Source: Bref, Table 5.3

residues
Table 2.2 Recycled (best-in-class) – Pulp and Paper Production Data
Unit Input / tonne Comments
Fibres inputs
Post-consumer paper kg 1,058 Source: http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1
Waste paper, mixed, from public collection, for further treatment/RER U, modified to
remove any transport from the collection system to the recycling facility
Chemicals
Kaolin kg 74.4 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1,

adjusted using EcoInvent “Paper, recycling, with deinking, at plant/RER U”
Aluminium Sulphate kg 11.9 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1,

Starch kg 39.0 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1,

Sodium Hydroxide kg 11.8 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1,

Sodium Silicate kg 9.4 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1,

Hydrogen Peroxide kg 15.8 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1,

Rosin Size kg 18.4 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1,


Chemicals unspecified kg 5.6 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1,

Coating Pigments kg 202 Source: http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1
Water
Surface Water litres 11,567 Source: http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1
Water, surface
Public Network litres 57 Source: http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1
Tap water, at user/RER SNI
Waste water from production litres 10,609 Source: http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1
Treatment, sewage, to wastewater treatment, class 5/CH SNI
Energy
 Primary energy kWh 1,691 Source: http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1, assuming that 15% of fuel used is
natural gas, while 85% is biomass based on previous ERM experience in the paper
industry
Allocated totally to heat production as it will capture all emissions related to combustion
of fuels
Of which natural gas kWh 254 Heat, at cogen 1MWe lean burn, allocation energy/RER SNI
Of which biomass kWh 1,437 Heat, at cogen 6400kWth, wood, allocation energy/CH SNI
Outputs
Recycled paper kg 1,000
Fibre & paper sludge kg 155 Source: http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1
Disposal, sludge from pulp and paper production, 25% water, to sanitary landfill/CH
SNI
Ashes and slag kg 82 Source: http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1
Disposal, ash from paper prod. sludge, 0% water, to residual material landfill/CH SNI
Rejects and recovered paper kg 14 Source: http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1
SNI
Industrial waste kg 1.13 Source: http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1
Disposal, inert waste, 5% water, to inert material landfill/CH SNI
Metals kg 0 Source: http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1
Paper, board kg 2.05 Source: http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1
Wood, pallers kg 0.13 Source: http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1
Others kg 0.020 Source: http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1
A2.1.2 Incoming Transport of Production Materials
The recycled paper supply system represents production of European recycled paper. It is assumed that sorted office waste
(SOW) is sourced from within-country and transported to an integrated recycled pulp and paper production facility.
Table 2.3 Recycled (average and best-in-class) – Transport of Incoming Materials
Material Transport mode Distance (km) Comments
Incoming transport
Post-consumer Road 300 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI

paper
Assumed average distance for all external waste paper (based on previous CF project)
Chemicals Road 500 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI
Assumed sourced within Europe. Estimated average transport.

Fillers Road 500 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI
A2.1.3 Outgoing Transport of Finished Recycled Paper Product
The finished paper is packed and loaded onto road vehicles for transport to the UK, via the Calais-Dover Channel crossing.
Upon arrival in the UK, the paper is transported by road to warehouse storage prior to delivery to various HMRC locations in
the UK.
Table 2.4 Recycled (average and best-in-class) – Outgoing Transport of Finished Product
Outgoing transport
Finished Road 480 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI

Recycled paper
Assumed sourced from Bessé sur Braye to Calais (FR). Quoted by a supplier as a major
European mill for recycled paper . Estimated average transport.
Sea 47 Transport, barge/RER SNI
Calais (FR) to Dover (UK)
Road 300 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI
Default UK.
A2.1.4 Use
Use of the paper is considered to be passive.

A2.1.5 End of life
At end of life, 100% of the Recycled paper is recycled. It is assumed that the discarded paper is collected and sorted within the
UK, prior to onward transport to a paper recycling facility. A default waste transport distance of 30 km is assumed for the
collection of the discarded paper.
The ‘0/100’ approach to allocating impacts from recycling has been employed for this study. This means that 0% of the burden
from recycling at end of life is attributed to the recycled paper system generating material for recycling (ie waste to recycling).
A2.2 VIRGIN PAPER SUPPLY SYSTEM
A2.2.1 Pulp Production and Paper Making
The virgin paper supply system represents production of European virgin paper consumed by HM Government (1), which
comprises paper production in different European regions, as follows:
 Scandinavia, comprising Finland, Norway and Sweden (53%);
 Iberian Peninsula, comprising Portugal and Spain (41%); and
 Russia (6%).
It is assumed that the Scandinavian virgin paper system is sourced equally from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Similarly, it is
assumed that the Iberian Peninsula Virgin paper system is sourced equally from Portugal and Spain.
Two virgin paper production systems are modelled in this study to represent ‘best-in-class’ and ‘average’ technology as follows:
 Virgin (average): this system refers to virgin paper contained in Scenario 1: Business-As-Usual, Scenario 3a: Closed Loop Recycled
(ave) & Virgin (ave), Scenario 3b: Closed Loop Recycled (BiC) & Virgin (ave) and Scenario 4a: Virgin (ave).
The pulp and paper production facility is modelled based on ‘average’ European technology (2). Energy for the pulp and
paper production process is sourced from a mix of grid electricity, liquid fuels and on-site generation. On-site energy
generation comprises a mix of renewable generation (hydro) and co-generation (CHP) fuelled by natural gas and biogenic
wastes. Energy for the pulp and paper production process is sourced from a mix of grid electricity, liquid fuels and on-site
(1) Office for National Statistics via DEFRA

(2) The characteristics for 'average European technology' are assumed based on the BREF for Pulp and Paper and Ecoinvent LCI data.
generation. On-site energy generation comprises a mix of renewable generation, comprising hydropower; and co-generation,
comprising CHP fuelled by natural gas and biogenic wastes. The specific mix of fuels used for on-site energy generation
varies according to the country of production.
Table 2.5 provides a summary of country-specific fuel mixes for on-site energy generation (1) for average virgin paper.
Table 2.5 Fuel Sources for On-Site Energy Generation for Average Virgin Paper Supply System (CEPI)
Fuel for On-Site Energy Generation Scandinavia Iberian Peninsula Russia

Finland Norway Sweden Portugal Spain
Hydro 5% 26% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Biomass 29% 9% 37% 31% 12% 22%
Natural Gas 7% 8% 6% 5% 28% 13%
Fuel Oil 0% 0% 0% 6% 3% 0%
Coal 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8%
Peat 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Table 2.6 provides a description of the LCI data used to model the energy consumption of average Virgin pulp and paper
production.
Table 2.6 Virgin - Energy Consumption LCI Data Descriptions
Energy Consumption based on CEPI article
Energy Source Spain Portugal Sweden Slovak Rep (proxy Norway Finland
for Russia)
Grid electricity Electricity, high Electricity, high Electricity, high Electricity, high Electricity, high Electricity, high
voltage, voltage, voltage, voltage, production voltage, production voltage, production
production ES, at production PT, at production SE, at RER, at grid/RER NO, at grid/NO SNI FI, at grid/FI SNI
grid/ES SNI grid/PT SNI grid/SE SNI SNI
(1) CEPI (2006) ’Looking good in print: CHP and the use of biomass in the European pulp and paper industry,’
http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/280234/articles/cogeneration-and-on-site-power-production/volume-7/issue-6/features/looking-good-in-print-chp-and-the-use-
Energy Consumption based on CEPI article
Hydro Electricity, Electricity,

hydropower, at hydropower, at
power plant/NO SNI power plant/FI SNI
Biomass, to Heat, at cogen Heat, at cogen Heat, at cogen Heat, at cogen Heat, at cogen Heat, at cogen
heat 6400kWth, wood, 6400kWth, wood, 6400kWth, wood, 6400kWth, wood, 6400kWth, wood, 6400kWth, wood,
emission control, emission control, emission control, emission control, emission control, emission control,
allocation allocation allocation allocation heat/CH allocation heat/CH allocation heat/CH
heat/CH SNI heat/CH SNI heat/CH SNI SNI SNI SNI
Natural Gas, to Heat, at cogen Heat, at cogen Heat, at cogen Heat, at cogen Heat, at cogen 1MWe Heat, at cogen 1MWe
heat 1MWe lean burn, 1MWe lean burn, 1MWe lean burn, 1MWe lean burn, lean burn, allocation lean burn, allocation
allocation allocation allocation allocation heat/RER heat/RER SNI heat/RER SNI
heat/RER SNI heat/RER SNI heat/RER SNI SNI
Fuel Oil Heat, heavy fuel Heat, heavy fuel

oil, at industrial oil, at industrial
furnace furnace
1MW/RER SNI 1MW/RER SNI
Coal Heat, at hard coal

industrial furnace 1-
10MW/RER SNI
Peat Heat, lignite

briquette, at stove 5-
15kW/RER SNI
 Virgin (best-in-class): this system refers to virgin paper that is contained in Scenario 4b: Virgin (BiC). The pulp and paper
production facility is modelled based on ‘best-in-class’ European technology (1). 100% of the energy for the pulp and paper
production process is sourced from on-site generation, which comprises co-generation (CHP) fuelled by natural gas and
biogenic waste (2).
(1) ‘Best-in-Class’ technology is based on operations at Steinbeis Mill in Germany, which currently produces a closed loop recycled paper product to HMRC. Steinbeis Mill is a recently upgraded facility
that utilises advanced on-site energy generation technology.
Data for virgin paper is based on EcoInvent data that represents average European production (Paper, woodfree, uncoated, at
integrated mill/RER (1)). Ecoinvent is a licensed database and therefore full inventory data are not provided. However, Table 2.7
describes the data that have been used to model the Virgin paper supply system. All Ecoinvent data used for this model have
been modified to exclude capital burdens (ie inputs from infrastructure). The energy inputs have also been modified to
accommodate different countries and their typical fuel inputs. Those typical energy uses were based on data from CEPI, and
show for instance Scandinavian countries would have inputs of hydropower, while Russian mills would typically have coal
inputs for heat production. Typical transport distances used in Ecoinvent have also been modified to accommodate the different
countries under study, and the average distance that a delivery to DEFRA would require.
Table 2.7 Virgin (average) – Pulp and Paper Production
LCI Data Description Comments
Fibres inputs
Hardwood Source: EcoInvent, data used: Industrial wood, hardwood, under bark, u=80%, at forest road/RER SNI
Softwood Source: EcoInvent, data used: Industrial wood, softwood, under bark, u=140%, at forest road/RER SNI
Chips, from saw mill Source: EcoInvent, data used: Chips, Scandinavian softwood (plant-debarked), u=70%, at plant/NORDEL SNI
External Sulphate pulp Source: EcoInvent, data used: Sulphate pulp, average, at regional storage/RER SNI
Fillers
Limestone Source: EcoInvent, data used: Limestone, milled, loose, at plant/CH SNI
Kaolin Source: EcoInvent, data used: Kaolin, at plant/RER SNI
Chemicals
Quicklime Source: EcoInvent, data used: Quicklime, milled, loose, at plant/CH SNI
CO2, liquid Source: EcoInvent, data used: Carbon dioxide liquid, at plant/RER SNI
Hydrogen Peroxide Source: EcoInvent, data used: Hydrogen peroxide, 50% in H2O, at plant/RER SNI
Sulphuric Acid Source: EcoInvent, data used: Sulphuric acid, liquid, at plant/RER SNI
Methanol Source: EcoInvent, data used: Methanol, at plant/GLO SNI
(1) 'RER' indicates average European production and energy mix.

Magnesium Sulphate Source: EcoInvent, data used: Magnesium sulphate, at plant/RER SNI
Nitrogen Source: EcoInvent, data used: Nitrogen, liquid, at plant/RER SNI
Sodium Chloride Source: EcoInvent, data used: Sodium chloride, powder, at plant/RER SNI
Sodium Chlorate Source: EcoInvent, data used: Sodium chlorate, powder, at plant/RER SNI
Sodium Hydroxide Source: EcoInvent, data used: Sodium hydroxide, 50% in H2O, production mix, at plant/RER SNI
Oxygen Source: EcoInvent, data used: Oxygen, liquid, at plant/RER SNI
AKD Sizer Source: EcoInvent, data used: AKD sizer, in paper production, at plant/RER SNI
Sulfur Dioxide Source: EcoInvent, data used: Sulphur dioxide, liquid, at plant/RER SNI
Starch Source: EcoInvent, data used: Potato starch, at plant/DE SNI
Other additives Source: EcoInvent, data used: Chemicals organic, at plant/GLO SNI
Water
In Source: EcoInvent, data used: Water, unspecified natural origin/m3
Out Source: EcoInvent, data used: Treatment, sewage, to wastewater treatment, class 5/CH SNI
Evaporated ERM Assumption
Energy
Total purchased energy1 Total average energy imported on-site, based on inputs from Paper, woodfree, uncoated, at integrated mill/RER U,
EcoInvent
As six typical paper producer countries were modelled, different energy mixed were used per country, based on
CEPI data. For more information, refer to table “Fuel used per country”
Outputs
Waste, ash Source: EcoInvent, data used: Disposal, wood ash mixture, pure, 0% water, to sanitary landfill/CH SNI
Waste water sludge Source: EcoInvent, data used: Disposal, sludge from pulp and paper production, 25% water, to sanitary landfill/CH
SNI & Disposal, ash from paper prod. sludge, 0% water, to residual material landfill/CH SNI
Hazardous waste Source: EcoInvent, data used: Disposal, hazardous waste, 0% water, to underground deposit/DE SNI
Waste to incineration Source: EcoInvent, data used: Disposal, municipal solid waste, 22.9% water, to sanitary landfill/CH SNI & Disposal,
municipal solid waste, 22.9% water, to municipal incineration/CH SNI
Table 2.8 Virgin (best-in-class) – Pulp and Paper Production
Fibres inputs
Hardwood Source: EcoInvent, data used: Industrial wood, hardwood, under bark, u=80%, at forest road/RER SNI
Softwood Source: EcoInvent, data used: Industrial wood, softwood, under bark, u=140%, at forest road/RER SNI
Chips, from saw mill Source: EcoInvent, data used: Chips, Scandinavian softwood (plant-debarked), u=70%, at plant/NORDEL SNI
External Sulphate pulp Source: EcoInvent, data used: Sulphate pulp, average, at regional storage/RER SNI
Fillers
Limestone Source: EcoInvent, data used: Limestone, milled, loose, at plant/CH SNI
Kaolin Source: EcoInvent, data used: Kaolin, at plant/RER SNI
Chemicals
Quicklime Source: EcoInvent, data used: Quicklime, milled, loose, at plant/CH SNI
CO2, liquid Source: EcoInvent, data used: Carbon dioxide liquid, at plant/RER SNI
Hydrogen Peroxide Source: EcoInvent, data used: Hydrogen peroxide, 50% in H2O, at plant/RER SNI
Sulphuric Acid Source: EcoInvent, data used: Sulphuric acid, liquid, at plant/RER SNI
Methanol Source: EcoInvent, data used: Methanol, at plant/GLO SNI
Magnesium Sulphate Source: EcoInvent, data used: Magnesium sulphate, at plant/RER SNI
Nitrogen Source: EcoInvent, data used: Nitrogen, liquid, at plant/RER SNI
Sodium Chloride Source: EcoInvent, data used: Sodium chloride, powder, at plant/RER SNI
Sodium Chlorate Source: EcoInvent, data used: Sodium chlorate, powder, at plant/RER SNI
Sodium Hydroxide Source: EcoInvent, data used: Sodium hydroxide, 50% in H2O, production mix, at plant/RER SNI
Oxygen Source: EcoInvent, data used: Oxygen, liquid, at plant/RER SNI
AKD Sizer Source: EcoInvent, data used: AKD sizer, in paper production, at plant/RER SNI
Sulfur Dioxide Source: EcoInvent, data used: Sulphur dioxide, liquid, at plant/RER SNI
Starch Source: EcoInvent, data used: Potato starch, at plant/DE SNI
Other additives Source: EcoInvent, data used: Chemicals organic, at plant/GLO SNI
Water
In Source: EcoInvent, data used: Water, unspecified natural origin/m3
Out Source: EcoInvent, data used: Treatment, sewage, to wastewater treatment, class 5/CH SNI
Evaporated ERM Assumption
Energy
Total purchased energy1 Total average energy imported on-site, based on inputs from Paper, woodfree, uncoated, at integrated mill/RER U,
EcoInvent.
Assumed that 15% of fuel used is natural gas, while 85% is biomass based on previous ERM experience in the paper
industry. Allocated totally to heat production as it will capture all emissions related to combustion of fuels
Outputs
Waste, ash Source: EcoInvent, data used: Disposal, wood ash mixture, pure, 0% water, to sanitary landfill/CH SNI
Waste water sludge Source: EcoInvent, data used: Disposal, sludge from pulp and paper production, 25% water, to sanitary landfill/CH
SNI & Disposal, ash from paper prod. sludge, 0% water, to residual material landfill/CH SNI
Hazardous waste Source: EcoInvent, data used: Disposal, hazardous waste, 0% water, to underground deposit/DE SNI
Waste to incineration Source: EcoInvent, data used: Disposal, municipal solid waste, 22.9% water, to sanitary landfill/CH SNI & Disposal,
municipal solid waste, 22.9% water, to municipal incineration/CH SNI
A2.2.2 Virgin (average and best-in-class) – Incoming Transport of Production Materials
Transportation mode Description Distance (km)
Spain
Chemicals Road Leuna (DE) to Asturias 2,168 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI
(ES)
Calculated based on assumed source of Germany
due to dominance in European chemicals industry
Fillers Road Default 500 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI
Assumed sourced within Europe. Estimated

average transport distance.
Wood Road Default 300 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI
Assumed sourced from region of paper

production. Default distance assumed.
Portugal
Chemicals Road Leuna (DE) to Aveirol 2,523 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI
(PT)


Sweden
Chemicals Road Leuna to Rostock (DE) 388 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI

Distance estimated
Sea Rostock (DE) to Gedser 63 Transport, barge/RER SNI

(DK)
Road Gedser (DK) to Börlange 850 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI


Finland
Chemicals Road Leuna to Hamburg (DE) 385 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI
Distance estimated
Sea Hamburg (DE) to Helsinki 1320 Transport, barge/RER SNI
(FI)
Distance estimated
Road Helsinki to Lappeenranta 230 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI
(FI)
Distance estimated


Norway
Chemicals Road Leuna to Hamburg (DE) 385 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI
Distance estimated
Sea Hamburg (DE) to 1485 Transport, barge/RER SNI

Trondheim (NO)
Distance estimated
Road Trondheim to Levanger 81 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI

(NO)
Distance estimated


Russia
Chemicals Road Default 500 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI



A2.2.3 Virgin – Outgoing Transport of Finished Product
The finished paper is packed and loaded onto road vehicles for transport to the closest appropriate port. The paper is
transported by sea to the UK, whereupon it is transported by road to warehouse storage prior to delivery to various HMRC
locations in the UK.
Table 2.9 Virgin (average and best-in-class) – Outgoing Transport of Finished Product
Transportation mode Description Distance (km) Ecoinvent Data Name
Spain
Paper Road Asturias to Gijon (ES) 50 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI
Sea Gijon (ES) to Avonmouth 998 Transport, barge/RER SNI

(UK)
Road Default UK 300 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI
Portugal
Paper Road Figueira da Foz (PT) to 20 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI
port
Sea Figueira da Foz (PT) to 1,444 Transport, barge/RER SNI

Bristol (UK)
Sweden
Paper Road Borlange to Goteborg (SE) 442 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI
Sea Goteborg (SE) to Hull 926 Transport, barge/RER SNI
(UK)
Finland
Paper Road Lappeenranta to Helsinki 230 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI
(FI)
Sea Helsinki (FI) to 1870 Transport, barge/RER SNI

Felixstowe (UK)
Norway
Paper Road Levanger to Throndheim 81 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI
(NO)
Sea Throndheim (NO) to 1503 Transport, barge/RER SNI

Felixstowe (UK)
Russia
Paper Road North Karelia to St 500 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI
Petersburg (RU)
Sea St Petersburg (RU) to 722 Transport, barge/RER SNI

Stockholm (SE)
Road Stockholm to Goteborg 468 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI
(SE)
Sea Goteborg (SE) to Hull 926 Transport, barge/RER SNI

(UK)
A2.2.4 Use

A2.2.5 End of life
At end of life, 100% of the Virgin paper is recycled. It is assumed that the discarded paper is collected and sorted within the UK,
prior to onward transport to a paper recycling facility. A default waste transport distance of 30 km is assumed for the collection
of the discarded paper.
The ‘0/100’ approach to allocating impacts from recycling has been employed for this study. This means that 0% of the burden
from recycling is attributed to the virgin system generating material for recycling (ie waste to recycling).
A2.3 CLOSED LOOP RECYCLED
A closed loop recycled paper system is defined as one in which the same core pool of paper fibre is used and reused. This should
be differentiated from conventional recycling systems, where the source of the waste paper feedstock is relatively uncertain.
However, with each recycling cycle, there is inevitable fibre loss (fibres can generally only be recycled up to about six times (1))
and therefore it is necessary to supplement the closed loop supply with some additional waste paper fibre.
The closed loop recycled paper supply system modelled in this study represents recycled paper consumed by HM Government
which is produced in a closed loop recycling system. Sorted office waste (SOW) is sourced from HM Government Departments
in the UK and transported to an integrated recycled pulp and paper production facility in Germany (2). The SOW comprises all
waste paper produced at HM Government Departments and includes purchased office paper, as well as some additional waste
paper from received mail.
The facility is a dedicated recycled pulp and paper mill that solely produces office paper. It is assumed that SOW sourced
externally to the closed loop system, and equating to approximately 10% of the total fibre input, is added to replenish any fibre
loss. Externally-sourced SOW is assumed to be sourced from Germany and transported by road to the closed loop recycled pulp
and paper production facility.
Two closed loop recycled paper production systems are modelled in this study to represent ‘best-in-class’ and ‘average’
technology as follows.
(1) http://www.paper.org.uk/information/factsheets/recovery_and_recycling.pdf
(2) The closed loop recycled paper currently sourced by HM Government is produced at Steinbeis Mill in Germany.
 Closed Loop Recycled (average): this system refers to closed loop recycled paper contained in Scenario 1: Business-As-Usual,
Scenario 2a: Closed Loop Recycled (ave), and Scenario 3a: Closed Loop Recycled & Virgin (ave). The pulp and paper production
facility is modelled based on ‘average’ European technology (1). Energy for the pulp and paper production process is sourced
from a mix of grid electricity, liquid fuels and on-site generation. On-site energy generation comprises a mix of renewable
generation, comprising hydropower; and co-generation, comprising CHP fuelled by natural gas and biogenic wastes.
 Closed Loop Recycled (best-in-class): This system refers to closed loop recycled paper that is contained in Scenario 2b: Closed
Loop Recycled and Scenario 3b: Closed Loop Recycled & Virgin. The pulp and paper production facility is modelled based on
‘best-in-class’ European technology (2). 100% of the energy for the pulp and paper production process is sourced from on-site
generation, which comprises co-generation (CHP) fuelled by natural gas and biogenic waste (3).
Table 2.10 Closed Loop Recycled – Production of Pulp and Paper (average)
Unit Input / Comments

tonne
Fibres inputs

Waste paper, mixed, from public collection, for further treatment/RER U, modified to remove any
transport from the collection system to the recycling facility
Chemicals
Kaolin kg 74.4 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1, adjusted using
EcoInvent “Paper, recycling, with deinking, at plant/RER U”
Aluminium Sulphate kg 11.9 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1, adjusted using
Starch kg 39 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1, adjusted using
(1)
(2)
tonne
Sodium Hydroxide kg 11.8 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1, adjusted using
Sodium Silicate kg 9.4 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1, adjusted using
Hydrogen Peroxide kg 15.8 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1, adjusted using
Rosin Size kg 18.4 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1, adjusted using
Chemicals unspecified kg 5.6 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1, adjusted using

Water

Water, surface
Energy
Grid electricity kWh 1,759 Average of energy use from BREF Table 5.2 & 5.3, allocated to electricity using CEPI data
(http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/280234/articles/cogeneration-
of-biomass-in-the-european-pulp-and-paper-industry.html)
Electricity, high voltage, production RER, at grid/RER SNI
tonne
Fuel Oil, light kWh 20 Average of energy use from BREF Table 5.2 & 5.3, allocated to electricity using CEPI data
Heat, light fuel oil, at industrial furnace 1MW/RER SNI
Fuel Oil, heavy kWh 152 Average of energy use from BREF Table 5.2 & 5.3, allocated to electricity using CEPI data
Heat, heavy fuel oil, at industrial furnace 1MW/RER SNI
Hydro power kWh 25 Average of energy use from BREF Table 5.2 & 5.3, allocated to electricity using CEPI data
Electricity, hydropower, at power plant/SE SNI
CHP - Biomass kWh 258 Average of energy use from BREF Table 5.2 & 5.3, allocated to electricity using CEPI data
Heat, at cogen 6400kWth, wood, emission control, allocation heat /CH SNI
CHP – Natural Gas kWh 871 Average of energy use from BREF Table 5.2 & 5.3, allocated to electricity using CEPI data
Heat, at cogen 1MWe lean burn, allocation heat/CH SNI
Outputs

tonne

Table 2.11 Closed Loop Recycled – Production of Pulp and Paper (best-in-class)
Fibres inputs
Waste paper, mixed, from public collection, for further treatment/RER U, modified to
remove any transport from the collection system to the recycling facility
Chemicals
Kaolin kg 74.4 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1,


Aluminium Sulphate kg 11.9 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1,

Starch kg 39.0 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1,

Sodium Hydroxide kg 11.8 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1,

Sodium Silicate kg 9.4 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1,

Hydrogen Peroxide kg 15.8 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1,

Rosin Size kg 18.4 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1,

Chemicals unspecified kg 5.6 Source: Based on data extracted from http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1,

Water
Water, surface

Energy
 Primary energy kWh 1,691 Source: http://www.stp.de/umweltbilanz.html?&L=1, assuming that 15% of fuel used is
natural gas, while 85% is biomass based on previous ERM experience in the paper
industry
Allocated totally to heat production as it will capture all emissions related to combustion
of fuels
Of which natural gas kWh 254 Heat, at cogen 1MWe lean burn, allocation energy/RER SNI
Of which biomass kWh 1,437 Heat, at cogen 6400kWth, wood, allocation energy/CH SNI
Outputs
SNI
SNI

A2.3.1 Closed Loop Recycled (average and best-in-class) – Incoming transport of production materials
The closed loop recycled paper supply system represents production of closed loop recycled paper that is supplied to HMRC
from Steinbeis Mill in Germany. It is assumed that sorted office waste (SOW) is sourced from HMRC in the UK and transported
to the closed loop recycled paper production facility in Germany.
Table 2.12 Recycled (average and best-in-class) – Transport of Incoming Materials
Incoming transport

paper
Estimated average distance for HMRC SOW transported to Dover (UK).
Post-consumer Sea 47 Transport, barge/RER SNI

paper
Distance by sea for Channel Crossing from Dover (UK) to Calais (FR).

paper
Estimated distance from Calais (FR) to Steinbeis Mill (DE).
Chemicals Road 500 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI
Fillers Road 500 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI

A2.3.2 Closed Loop Recycled Paper (average and best-in-class) – Outgoing Transport of Finished Closed Loop Recycled Paper Product
The finished paper is packed and loaded onto road vehicles for transport to the UK, via the Calais-Dover Channel crossing.
Upon arrival in the UK, the paper is transported by road to warehouse storage prior to delivery to various HMRC locations in
the UK.
Table 2.13 Closed Loop Recycled Paper (average and best-in-class) – Outgoing Transport of Finished Product
Outgoing transport
Finished Closed Road 805 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI
Loop Recycled
Estimated distance from Steinbeis Mill (DE) to Calais (FR).
paper
Sea 47 Transport, barge/RER SNI
Calais (FR) to Dover (UK)
Road 300 Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER SNI
Default UK.
A2.3.3 Use
A2.3.4 End of life
At end of life, 100% of the Closed Loop Recycled paper is recycled in the closed loop system. It is assumed that the discarded
paper is collected and returned to the same facility as it was originally produced and following the same route as the inward
transport step.
ERM has over 100 offices
Across the following
countries worldwide
Argentina Malaysia
Australia Mexico
Azerbaijan The Netherlands
Belgium Peru
Brazil Poland
Canada Portugal
Chile Puerto Rico
China Russia
France Singapore
Germany South Africa
Hong Kong Spain
Hungary Sweden
India Taiwan
Indonesia Thailand
Ireland UK
Italy US
Japan Vietnam
Kazakhstan Venezuela
Korea
ERM’s Manchester Office
11th Floor
5 Exchange Quay
Manchester M5 3EF
T: 0161 958 8853
F: 0161 958 8888
www.erm.com
ERM consulting services worldwide www.erm.com

Streamlined LCA of Paper Supply Systems: Delivering Sustainable Solutions in A More Competitive World

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Streamlined LCA of Paper Supply Systems: Delivering Sustainable Solutions in A More Competitive World

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Streamlined LCA of Paper

Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world

Streamlined LCA of Paper Supply

Prepared by: Saori Smith and Paul-Antoine Bontinck

Reviewed by: James Cadman, Michael Collins and

For and on behalf of

Approved by: Simon Aumonier

Date: 23 March 2012

This report has been prepared by Environmental Resources

We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of

This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility

Environmental Resources Management Limited (ERM) was commissioned by

The specific objectives of the study were to:

‘Closed loop’ incorporates conventional recycling processes, but allows an

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA

Life cycle assessments (LCA) typically comprise four steps as described by

Scenarios were devised to investigate the environmental impacts of the four

Scenario Scenario Name Scenario Description

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA

Overall, the best in class options resulted in much lower environmental

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA

Influence of transport distances

There is no discernible difference in the paper production process for recycled

Influence of fibre feedstock

Therefore, it can be summarised that a best-in-class, integrated, recycled paper

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA

With this perspective, it is recommended that purchasing specifications for

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA

1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND 2

2 GOAL AND SCOPE 4

2.1 GOAL OF THE STUDY 4

3 PAPER SUPPLY SYSTEMS STUDIED 14

3.1 SCENARIO DESCRIPTIONS 14

4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESULTS 23

4.1 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT RESULTS 23

5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES 36

5.1 TRANSPORT DISTANCES – LOCAL SOURCING OF FIBRE INPUTS 36

6.1 RECYCLED VS VIRGIN PAPER 45

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA

1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND

Environmental Resources Management Limited (ERM) was commissioned by

LCAs typically comprise four steps as described by international standards on

Defra is interested in understanding the relative environmental benefits of

In a closed loop system, paper purchased and used by an organisation is

Closed loop recycling should be differentiated from conventional recycling

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA

The remainder of this report is set out as follows:

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA

2.1 GOAL OF THE STUDY

The specific objectives of the study are to:

2.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

2.2.1 Functional Units

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA

All the paper systems studied comprise production of A4 office paper of 80

2.2.2 System Boundary

Further detail on the specific paper supply systems is provided in Section 3.

This study includes the following life cycle stages.

Production of raw materials, comprising:

 growing and extraction of raw materials (wood, minerals, etc);

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA

Recycling Incineration Landfill

Note: ‘T’ indicates a transport step

Pulp production, comprising: