Pulp Paper & Logistics


RIVERSIDE 21 FEATURE


the kit to fi t in their service lift s. Printi ng companies, catering fi rms, serviced offi ces, local authoriti es and hospitals are just some of the other organisati ons making the switch to procure their own machinery, rather than relying solely on the recycling profi ciency of their chosen waste contractor. The benefi ts of smarter in-house paper recycling processes are multi faceted. On a simplisti c level, baling ‘waste’ paper can improve on-site cleanliness, which is parti cularly important when space is limited. But even in larger premises, it’s bett er to be ti dy, so that waste paper and board doesn’t blow around a windy yard, for instance. It can have ti me saving benefi ts


too. In some organisati ons, loose waste paper and board is handled three or four ti mes before it is collected. Surely that employee ti me would be bett er spent doing something more business related? And then there’s the commercial


advantage of baling waste paper, which shouldn’t be reserved purely for large companies. Why pay to dispose of paper, when it could instead be collected for free? In some instances, recycling contractors will even pay for paper or board which generates an additi onal revenue stream. Much depends on the


now available in the marketplace, mean paper waste handling equipment is more accessible to organisati ons, regardless of their size. Gone are the days when only large businesses with spacious warehouses can invest in plant and machinery to smarten up their approach to paper recycling. Small verti cal paper baling machines with a footprint of only 1,040 x 720mm, for example,


can slot into even the ti ghtest of commercial environments. And typically available to purchase from £2,500, or rent from as litt le as £23 per week, this doesn’t represent a signifi cant fi nancial commitment. So, local independent retailers handling paper and board packaging waste, for instance, can invest in such technology with relati ve ease, as can hotels who’d like


geographical vicinity of a recycling partner, and the size of the bale. Mill size bales could att ract a rate of £50/tonne, for example (subject to segregati on and commodity values), whilst for smaller bales, there may be no rebate but at least the waste collecti on fees are wiped out. And of course there’s the


argument that those responsible for producing the ‘waste’ in the fi rst place, have a duty of care to ensure it goes on to be processed in the most environmentally


responsible and resourceful manner possible. It’s scary that a signifi cant number of businesses – and households – sti ll throw clean paper in with all of their other general waste. In these scenarios, the risk of the fi bres within this valuable resource being damaged, to the extent that they cannot be salvaged, is simply too great. At the very least, waste paper and card should be disposed of in a DMR (dry mixed recycling) skip, so that a waste company can run it through a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) and pick it. But why not streamline the ensuing processes in the supply chain and adopt a best practi ce approach before the paper even leaves the waste producer’s site? People predicted that, with


the conti nued evoluti on of IT, the business environment would become increasingly paperless. In some instances we are seeing evidence that this is the case, with a growing level of news being consumed online or via social media, for example, rather than traditi onal newspapers. But elsewhere, paper and board is sti ll a very real part of business life. Offi ces may store less paper, for example, but they sti ll use it in comparati ve volumes, just in diff erent ways. From labels and confi denti al documents, through to product packaging and transit sacks, a lot of paper is here to stay, for the ti me being at least. It is therefore important that


we don’t lose sight of the need to work smarter when it comes to paper recycling. The ‘green fati gue’ phrase is something nobody can aff ord to see in the media again.


Jonathan Oldfi eld is managing director of Riverside Waste Machinery.


January/February 2016


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36