However, UK parties interested in responding need to get their feedback in within a few days to the Paper Industry Technical Association which is coordinating the process.
The document has been agreed by Europes waste management industry through FEAD (which includes the UKs Environmental Services Association) and CEPI and ERPA which respectively include the UKs Confederation of Paper Industries and the Recycling Association.
Crucially, the EN643 guidance sets limits ranging from 0.5% to 1.5% for non-paper components which could have a bearing on the current debate about contamination levels in commingled material from materials recycling facilities. (An exception is a 3% contamination level for drinks cartons – the 1.5% would apply to mixed paper and board).The limit will also be a factor taken into account in terms of illegal exports although it is not clear whether the figure will be accepted by the Environment Agency.
Draft document
The draft document – (prEN 643:2011) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 172 Pulp, paper and board, the secretariat of which is held by DIN (Germany) says the main aim of EN643 is to help the paper industry. It will be recommended that this document is used at all national levels in all official reports and in the day-to-day running of companies. It secures the quality of the supply of paper and board for recycling to the paper mills through responsible sourcing of the paper industry’s raw materials.
On the 1.5% figure, the draft states: a limit of 1.5 % non-paper components is set for end-of-waste material. For this reason, much effort was given to the definition of tolerance levels for non-paper components and unwanted materials at this revision. The definition of tolerance levels also reduces the need for individual agreements between buyer and supplier.
Prohibited
Prohibited materials are: Any materials which represent a hazard for health, safety and environment, such as medical waste, contaminated products of personal hygiene , hazardous waste, organic waste including foodstuffs, bitumen, toxic powders and the like.
And, the document also appears to suggest a recognition within the paper industry that it may face the loss of material to incineration. The word recovered which is often used in the UK, is being abandoned and instead new terminology is being adopted.
The draft states: A further major criterion is the use of the product for paper fibre recycling. To take account of this criterion, the terminology of the EN 643 has been amended by substituting the term “recovered paper and board” by “paper and board for recycling” in the title and throughout the document.
Comments
The consultation officially closes at the end of November with the UK having to submit its views to the German DIN organisation. However, comments are requested over the next few days by the UKs coordinating body, the Paper Industry Technical Association, which will then draw responses together and submit them to DIN.
Barry Read, technology director at PITA, said that there had been significant changes to the grades listed in EN643, with the number rising from 60 to about 115. It is very much an imperative to get this revision into place in order to fit in to other legislation. It is not the best standard but it is a step in the right direction.
(article continues below table)
An excerpt from the draft document:
| Code | Title | Description | Non-paper com-ponents in % |
Total un-wanted material in % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.01.00 | ordinary mixed paper and board | A mixture of various grades of paper and board, | 1.5 | 3 |
| 1.02.00 | mixed paper and board | A mixture of various qualities of paper and board, containing a maximum of 40% newspapers and magazines. | 1.5 | 2.5 |
| 1.04.00 | ordinary corrugated paper and board | Used paper and board packaging, containing a minimum of 70% of corrugated board, the rest being other paper and board products. | 1,5 | 3 |
Mr Read added that he would like to see the working group revisit the standard as soon as it was published. It is not due for revision for another five years but the shortcomings are known and it would make sense to work on these in time for the next review.
In particular, the concerns are understood to centre around the fact that there are no sampling methodologies or test methods designated in the standards and limited mention of moisture content. And, Mr Read suggested it might be possible to bring in some PAS specifications in the UK to be applied to testing procedures. Comments can be sent to: barry@pita.co.uk
Review
Stuart Pohler, recovered paper sector manager at the Confederation of Paper Industries, said: There are a lot of grades in there. I think a key thing really is to push for a periodic review. As much as with any policy instrument, because this includes so many variables its had input from so many member states with potential vested interests and has become quite convoluted.
It is not necessarily a good thing having so many grades – there are conflicting views from some quarters, mills and merchants, some may not want tighter standards.
Register for free to comment