It's time to clean up chlorine bleaching

By Christoph Thies and Martin Kaiser

In the late 1980s, alarming reports came in about the impact of pulp bleaching with chlorine chemicals on water ecosystems. The environmental movement was quick to react to the news. Greenpeace launched a major initiative against chlorine bleaching in pulp producing countries and in the most important market areas.

The campaign, not just a protest against chlorine gas, but a necessary catalyst to help the industry move toward sustainability and closed loops, was probably one of the most successful in the history of environmentalism. Under considerable pressure, the pulp and paper industry progressed from their initial "chlorine is no more harmful than salt" attitude to making serious attempts to eliminate chlorine in their bleaching processes in just a few years.

By 1993, several new European plants had invested in totally chlorine-free (TCF) bleaching and similar plans were being considered in North America. Demand for TCF was definitely on the rise. Combined with the construction of biological sludge treatment plants, banning chlorine gas and switching to TCF dramatically reduced the toxicity of pulp mill effluents. A reassuring "chlorine free" label appeared on paper and packaging materials. Greenpeace saluted the victory and turned its attention to the world's last remaining ancient and old growth forests, which are mostly threatened by logging.

Looking back, it seems the celebration was premature. Alongside the TCF technologies, the industry introduced bleaching with chlorine dioxide, which it misleadingly calls elemental chlorine-free (ECF). This has not only enabled the industry to continue using existing technology without investing in new and cleaner processes such as TCF, but it has also helped the chlorine manufacturers to continue to do business as usual.

A whole international lobby, preaching ECF as the most environmentally friendly technology, has joined forces over the years. Data and research have been produced and marketed to selectively demonstrate that there is little difference between the environmental impacts of TCF and ECF pulp mill effluents. While this is true in certain cases, it is important to point out that it only applies to the most modern, so-called "ECF light" plants, situated mostly in the Nordic countries. It should not be used as a blanket argument to describe the global picture, which is far gloomier.

Another argument often quoted, but rarely substantiated by practical evidence, is the question of yield. It is claimed that TCF requires more wood, but according to data reviewed by Greenpeace, this is due to other factors than the mere bleaching agents used. TCF pulp is also often said to be of a lower quality than ECF pulp, but this claim seems to be based on outdated information and is no longer relevant for the majority of bleached kraft pulp produced in the world.

No argument changes the fact that one of the cornerstones of environmental protection, the precautionary principle, still holds. With the aim of closing the loops, getting rid of chlorine-based chemicals still seems to serve as the most useful step. As TCF technology develops further, it is also expected to become the more economically viable option.

Convincing customers

But the prevailing ECF-oriented argument has managed to convince, or confuse, some major paper users. It is possible that even those with the best of intentions are not actually getting what they think they are getting.

A new term, "TCF quality", has been smuggled into the jargon used by paper producers to refer to pulp which is mixed from ECF and TCF. If no further questions are asked, this product ends up being marketed as "chlorine free" or TCF. The growing sodium chlorate production figures also confirm the increase in ECF production in North America (PPI, October 1998, p 46). According to some European pulp producers, the demand for TCF has plummeted in recent years - so much so that it is not possible that all "TCF only" users actually use TCF exclusively because there is simply not enough of it around. Someone somewhere along the paper chain is cheating. Small wonder then that consumers get confused, too. Frequently they are told a paper product is "chlorine free", when in fact it has been bleached with chlorine dioxide.

The reactions to the environmental organizations' critique have included frustration, guilt and irritation. The industry clearly thought that consumers and environmentalists alike had forgotten all about chlorine. Waking the beast up after all these years is hardly a welcome development and easily gets labeled as "chlorofobia".

There is nothing phobic about wanting to get rid of chlorine chemicals though. There can be no place for them in ecologically sound production - a goal which the pulp and paper industry is in a realistic position to strive for. But that requires the industry consistently to keep on cleaning up their act at all levels. After all, if companies are not to be trusted in the simple case of chlorine, then how can we be sure they keep their promises about not touching ancient forests in 10 years time?

Dr Christoph Thies coordinates Greenpeace International's Forest Campaign in Amsterdam. Martin Kaiser works as Greenpeace Germany's Forest Campaigner in Hamburg