United States Paper, 

Paperboard, and Market 

Pulp Capacity Trends by 

Process and Location, 

1970–2000

Peter J. Ince 

Xiaolei Li 

Mo Zhou 

Joseph Buongiorno 

Mary Reuter 

United States

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Forest 

Products 

Laboratory 

Research 

Paper 

FPL−RP−602 
Abstract 

This report presents a relational database with estimates of 

annual production capacity for all mill locations in the United 

States where paper, paperboard, or market pulp were produced from 1970 to 2000. Data for more than 500 separate 

mill locations are included in the database, with annual capacity data for each year from 1970 to 2000 (more than 17,000 

individual data records). Numeric code, company name, city, 

state, region, and local postal ZIP code are included in the 

database. Capacity estimates are given for each of 12 principal categories of paper or paperboard commodities as well as 

different categories of market pulp. Capacity data at each mill 

location are further differentiated by process type within each 

category of paper or paperboard; for example, capacity based 

on recycled fiber is differentiated from capacity based on 

wood pulp. Estimates of mill capacity by process were 

derived from industry directories, corporate reports, trade 

journal articles, and other sources. This report provides 

documentation of the capacity database and a summary of 

capacity trends by commodity category, process, and region. 

The report includes tabulations and charts of annual capacity 

trends and also maps of capacity by commodity, process, and 

location for 1970 and 2000. By illustrating shifts in capacity, 

the report describes some of the more significant changes that 

have occurred in pulp and paper technology during the past 

several decades. 

October 2001 

Ince, Peter J.; Li, Xiaolei; Zhou, Mo; Buongiorno, Joseph; Reuter, Mary R. 

2001. United States paper, paperboard, and market pulp capacity trends by 

process and location, 1970–2000. Res. Pap. FPL-RP-602. Madison, WI: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 36 p. 

A limited number of free copies of this publication are available to the public 

from the Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, Madison, 

WI 53705–2398. Laboratory publications are sent to hundreds of libraries in 

the United States and elsewhere. 

The Forest Products Laboratory is maintained in cooperation with the University of Wisconsin. 

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information 

and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of 

any product or service. 

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national 

origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or 

marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a 

complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Acknowledgments 

The authors acknowledge contributions of former FPL employees and University of Wisconsin students who assisted in 

compilations of data for the capacity database. These include 

Jeff Lehmann, Kevin Check, and Mike Collet, who developed 

an earlier version of the database in 1996 with data from 

1970 to 1995. 

Contents 

Page 

Introduction .........................................................................1

Database Conventions and Structure ...................................2

Geographic Presentation of Data .........................................2

Regions............................................................................3

Geocoding........................................................................3

Pie Charts.........................................................................4

Spatial–Temporal Analysis ...............................................4

Map Discussion................................................................4

Comparison With Industry Capacity Data.............................4

Capacity Trends for Paper, Paperboard, and Market Pulp in 

the United States..................................................................5

Capacity Trends by Commodity, Process, and Region ..........6

Newsprint........................................................................ 8 

Coated and Uncoated Groundwood Papers ......................9

Coated and Uncoated Free Sheet Papers.........................14

Tissue and Sanitary Paper...............................................16

Specialty Packaging and Industrial Paper........................18

Kraft Packaging Paper....................................................20

Linerboard (and Other Unbleached Kraft Paperboard) ....20

Market Pulp ...................................................................28

Shifts in Mill Size ...............................................................30

Shifts in Concentration by Firm and by State ......................32

Summary............................................................................32

References .........................................................................32
United States Paper, Paperboard, 

and Market Pulp Capacity Trends 

by Process and Location, 1970–2000 

Peter J. Ince, Research Forester 

Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin

Xiaolei Li, Graduate Student 

Mo Zhou, Graduate Student 

Joseph Buongiorno, Professor 

Department of Forest Ecology and Management 

University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin

Mary R. Reuter, Computer Assistant 

Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin 

Introduction 

This report provides a detailed data reference for capacity 

trends of the pulp and paper industry in the United States 

based on a compilation of individual mill and process data 

from 1970 to 2000. Capacity estimates by mill location and 

process type were derived from industry directories (Paperloop Publications 2000), from other industry sources (Miller–

Freeman 1999), and from corporate reports, trade journal 

articles, and other sources (for example, equipment suppliers). To illustrate capacity changes in meaningful detail, the 

sector is divided into commodity categories within three 

broad commodity groups: paper, paperboard, and market 

pulp. The data presented in this report are compared with 

industry capacity data compiled and published by the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA 2000). The 

AF&PA data are regarded as the basic reference for actual 

industry capacity. However, unlike the data described in this 

report, the AF&PA capacity data are available at the aggregate national and regional levels only by product category 

and not by mill location or process type. 

The paper commodity group includes eight conventional 

categories: newsprint, four categories of printing and writing 

paper, tissue and sanitary paper products, unbleached kraft 

paper, and other specialty packaging and industrial paper 

products. The paperboard commodity group includes four 

conventional commodity categories: linerboard and corrugating medium, solid bleached board, and other recycled paperboard. A more detailed description of each commodity category is provided in this report. The market pulp commodity 

group includes primarily hardwood and softwood kraft market pulp, deinked market pulp based on recycled fiber, and 

relatively small amounts of bleached chemithermomechanical 

market pulp (CTMP) and cotton linter pulp. These commodities are produced generally for use in papermaking. In addition, the market pulp commodity group includes dissolving 

pulp (or so-called special alpha pulp), which is also sold in 

the global pulp market but typically used in processes other 

than papermaking, such as in production of synthetic rayon 

and other cellulose polymers. 

Although total capacity among these commodity groups has 

generally increased during the past 30 years, each commodity 

has distinctly different growth patterns. To illustrate this 

point, we discuss and present the data trends for each commodity separately. We provide a general description of each 

commodity and present data on total capacity in the United 

States plus detailed information on changes in capacity by 

process and region from 1970 to 2000. All information is 

based on data for individual mills. By aggregating mill data 

geographically, we can also derive capacities by States or 

regions as well as their changes with time. 

The data were organized in a relational database1

 using Lotus 

Approach (Lotus Development Corporation, Cambridge, 

MA). The database permits quick retrieval of capacity data by 

organizational topic, such as capacity by year, product, process, or State or region. The mill capacity database, referred to 

in this report as the FPL–UW database, is maintained at the 

USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) in 

Madison, Wisconsin, in collaboration with the University of 

Wisconsin–Madison. 

 

1

A copy of the database file (.dbf file) may be obtained by 

contacting the senior author. 
2 

Database Conventions 

and Structure 

All capacity data contained in the FPL–UW database and 

discussed in this report are in thousands of short tons per year 

(1 short ton = 0.9072 metric ton). Generally, paper and 

paperboard production capacity refers to machine-dry weight 

(dry weight basis), whereas pulp capacity refers to air-dry 

weight (conventionally assumed to be 10% moisture content 

on a total weight basis). Data from the various sources were 

sometimes in other units of measure, such as metric tons. 

These were converted into thousands of short tons according 

to international conventions. Data were collected for each 

year from 1970 to 2000. The year 1970 thus serves conveniently as the base year for comparison of capacity changes 

with time in this report, although the database permits comparison of data among all years from 1970 to 2000. 

Within the database, there is a data record for each mill location and each year, and the data record includes company 

name, city, state, ZIP code, and capacity estimates by process 

type for each product category. Altogether there are more 

than 17,000 data records in the database. An example of mill 

data records in the FPL–UW database is shown in Table 1, 

illustrating capacity records for one mill located in Albany, 

Oregon. The database indicates that an operational mill existed at this same location for more than 30 years. However, 

ownership of the mill changed in 1981, from Western Kraft 

Corporation to Willamette Industries, Inc. The data indicate 

also that the mill has been a producer of containerboard 

(kraft linerboard and corrugating medium) and unbleached 

kraft paper. 

The capacities for each commodity category changed substantially with time at the Albany mill. For corrugating medium, the data indicate that the mill’s capacity was integrated 

with the semichemical pulping process in the early 1970s (the 

term integrated in this report means that papermaking capacity is combined with pulping capacity at the same facility or 

mill location). Nationwide, production capacity for corrugating medium gradually shifted from semichemical pulp to 

recycled fiber. At the Albany mill, corrugating medium capacity based on recycled fiber appeared around 1977. However, 

in 1992, the mill ceased production of corrugating medium 

altogether. The mill also produced linerboard throughout 

1970 to 2000 using primarily kraft pulp (with some use of 

recycled fiber). Beginning in the early 1980s, a major nationwide shift in kraft linerboard technology occurred with proliferation of newer types of press technology (wide-nip, shoe 

press, or high intensity pressing). Linerboard at the Albany 

mill was produced with old press technology until around 

1987–1988, when this new press technology was introduced. 

The Albany mill has also produced unbleached kraft paper 

throughout 1970 to 2000, and in that case, kraft pulp has 

always been used. 

From such detailed capacity data for all U.S. mill locations, 

we derived trends in capacity by process and region for each 

commodity group in the United States. Trends in capacity by 

process and region serve to document significant technological changes and shifts in capacity by commodity group. In 

addition, using the mill capacity database, we also computed 

capacity distributions by mill size to demonstrate changes in 

concentration and scale of production. Finally, we used the 

FPL–UW database to aggregate mill capacity data geographically and to map locations of mill capacity by commodity and process type, illustrating changes in capacities among 

States and regions during the past 30 years. 

Geographic Presentation 

of Data 

The geographic presentation of the data in this report illustrates shifts in capacity by process and location between 1970 

and 2000. This was accomplished by mapping locations of 

U.S. mills in 1970 and in 2000, showing in each case the 

relative amount of capacity by proportional map symbols. 

The map symbols are also small pie charts that illustrate the 

distribution of capacity by process type at each mill location. 

Thus, the maps illustrate not only shifts in location of mill 

capacity by product category but also some of the significant 

shifts in technology that have occurred in recent decades, 

such as the shift toward more recycling capacity. Separate 

maps were produced for each of the following 13 principal 

commodity categories: 

• newsprint 

• uncoated free sheet 

• coated free sheet 

• uncoated groundwood 

• coated groundwood 

• tissue and sanitary 

• specialty packaging and industrial paper 

• kraft packaging paper 

• linerboard 

• corrugating medium 

• solid bleached board 

• recycled board 

• market pulp 

All mill capacities illustrated in the maps were derived from 

the FPL–UW mill capacity database. Similar maps can be 

produced for any year from 1970 to 2000. 
3 

Regions 

In this report, reference is made to three large U.S. regions, 

the North, the South, and the West. Figure 1 shows the 

precise definition of each large region. Also, the maps in this 

report generally show the outline of State borders across the 

United States. Because there were no mills located in Hawaii 

and historically only two market pulp mills in Alaska, these 

two States are not shown in the maps of this report. 

Geocoding 

When data are geocoded, they are allocated to a location on 

the map according to geographic attributes, for example by 

longitude and latitude or by postal ZIP code. The capability 

to map geocoded data is a common built-in function of many 

computerized mapping systems and geographic information 

systems (GIS). In this study, the postal ZIP code was used to 

geocode each mill. After the data are geocoded, each mill can 

Table 1—An example of annual mill capacity data records in the FPL–UW database for one mill location

 Capacity (thousand short tons) 

Corrugating 

medium Linerboard 

Unbleached kraft 

paper 

Year City State Company ZIP

Semi 

chemical 100% 

recycled

Old press 

technology

New press

technology

100% 

recycled

Integrated

with kraft 

pulp 

100%

recycled Total

1970 Albany OR Western Kraft Corp 97321 66 0 169 0 0 23 0 258 

1971 Albany OR Western Kraft Corp 97321 66 0 169 0 0 23 0 258 

1972 Albany OR Western Kraft Corp 97321 66 0 231 0 0 32 0 329 

1973 Albany OR Western Kraft Corp 97321 66 0 188 0 0 26 0 280 

1974 Albany OR Western Kraft Corp 97321 66 0 188 0 0 26 0 280 

1975 Albany OR Western Kraft Corp 97321 66 0 188 0 0 26 0 280 

1976 Albany OR Western Kraft Corp 97321 66 0 188 0 0 26 0 280 

1977 Albany OR Western Kraft Corp 97321 66 5 199 0 0 27 0 297 

1978 Albany OR Western Kraft Corp 97321 66 17 235 0 0 32 0 350 

1979 Albany OR Western Kraft Corp 97321 66 17 235 0 0 32 0 350 

1980 Albany OR Western Kraft Corp 97321 66 17 235 0 0 32 0 350 

1981 Albany OR Willamette Industries Inc 97321 66 21 246 0 0 34 0 367 

1982 Albany OR Willamette Industries Inc 97321 70 21 246 0 0 34 0 371 

1983 Albany OR Willamette Industries Inc 97321 66 33 236 0 0 32 0 367 

1984 Albany OR Willamette Industries Inc 97321 66 33 236 0 0 32 0 367 

1985 Albany OR Willamette Industries Inc 97321 66 33 236 0 0 32 0 367 

1986 Albany OR Willamette Industries Inc 97321 66 33 236 0 0 32 0 366 

1987 Albany OR Willamette Industries Inc 97321 66 33 148 87 0 32 0 366 

1988 Albany OR Willamette Industries Inc 97321 66 33 0 277 0 38 0 414 

1989 Albany OR Willamette Industries Inc 97321 66 33 0 277 0 38 0 414 

1990 Albany OR Willamette Industries Inc 97321 64 27 0 277 0 38 0 406 

1991 Albany OR Willamette Industries Inc 97321 64 27 0 277 0 38 0 406 

1992 Albany OR Willamette Industries Inc 97321 64 27 0 377 0 50 0 518 

1993 Albany OR Willamette Industries Inc 97321 0 0 0 385 0 50 0 435 

1994 Albany OR Willamette Industries Inc 97321 0 0 0 378 0 50 0 428 

1995 Albany OR Willamette Industries Inc 97321 0 0 0 421 0 50 0 471 

1996 Albany OR Willamette Industries Inc 97321 0 0 0 471 0 50 0 521 

1997 Albany OR Willamette Industries Inc 97321 0 0 0 501 0 50 0 551 

1998 Albany OR Willamette Industries Inc 97321 0 0 0 504 0 50 0 554 

1999 Albany OR Willamette Industries Inc 97321 0 0 0 518 0 50 0 568 

2000 Albany OR Willamette Industries Inc 97321 0 0 0 554 0 50 0 604 
4 

be positioned automatically at its location using appropriate 

desktop computer mapping software, in this case ATLAS 

GIS, version 3.0 (Environmental Systems Research Institute, 

Redlands, California). 

Pie Charts 

The capacity of each mill and its distribution by process was 

illustrated on the map by a proportionately scaled pie chart, 

using the ATLAS GIS Charts on Maps feature. On the maps, 

the proportional size of the pie chart represents the amount of 

total capacity at each mill location, and the distribution of 

capacity by process type is represented by slices of the pie, 

drawn to scale and color-coded. Thus, each map displays an 

array of spatial features and other information—locations of 

mills by commodity category and relative scale of capacity by 

geographic location, as well as the distributions of capacity 

by process type. 

Spatial–Temporal Analysis 

Because both capacity and process types change with time, 

they can be portrayed temporally as well as spatially. Spatial 

and temporal features can be combined into a single analysis 

model, as in the work of Kurttila (2001), Naesset (1997), and 

Loehle (2000). At FPL, the principal application of the 

FPL–UW database is in economic modeling, specifically as a 

source of reference data for an analytic approach to modeling 

and projecting capacity change by commodity, process, and 

region with time. In that application, the capacity data are 

first calibrated to the published AF&PA capacity data at the 

national level (and at the regional level for the years that 

AF&PA published regional capacity data). Essentially, the 

data in the FPL–UW database are used to determine the 

regional distributions of capacity by process type, within each 

commodity category, whereas the AF&PA capacity data are 

used to determine the aggregate capacity for each commodity 

category. Econometric techniques are used to establish relationships between capacity change and economic parameters 

with time. 

In this report, shifts in capacity are shown in charts and on 

maps for the years 1970 and 2000, with separate maps for 

each commodity category. Comparison of the maps for 1970 

and 2000 provides an explanation and a direct illustration of 

spatial–temporal shifts in capacity. However, the aggregates 

of annual capacity data in the FPL–UW database coupled 

with econometric methods provide the basis for a more detailed economic explanation for shifts in capacities by region 

and process type with time. (This will be the subject of subsequent research and is beyond the scope of this report.) 

Map Discussion 

By comparing two maps at different points in time, changes 

in the magnitude and locations of capacity are clearly apparent. Although the data are not given quantitatively, it is usually readily apparent on the maps where significant increases 

or decreases in capacity have occurred and also where capacity shifted from one process type to another. Nevertheless, 

interpretation of maps is sometimes an incomplete or inaccurate source of quantitative information and is sometimes even 

misleading due to the abundance of visual information, especially if some changes are relatively small and difficult to see. 

This shortcoming must be overcome by using quantitative 

data to analyze capacity distributions and changes in capacity 

with time. 

Comparison With Industry 

Capacity Data 

To test the accuracy of the mill-based capacity data, we 

compared our aggregated data at the national level with 

nationwide industry capacity data published by the leading 

industry trade association, the American Forest & Paper 

Association. The AF&PA capacity data are based primarily 

on surveys of member company mills. The AF&PA capacity 

survey is published annually with capacity reported by commodity category, although data are not publicly available at 

the mill level or by process type. Nevertheless, Figure 2 

shows that the total U.S. paper and paperboard capacity from 

the FPL–UW database closely emulates the AF&PA data 

from 1970 to 2000. 

Table 2 reports differences between aggregate data in the 

FPL–UW database and published AF&PA capacity data for 

paper, paperboard, market pulp, and in total. The largest 

difference in total capacity, 2.9%, occurred in 1988. For most 

years, the difference is less than 1%. Among paper, paperboard, and market pulp, differences were rarely more than 

5% (Table 2). The largest differences occurred for market 

pulp. Some differences are expected to occur because of 

differences in estimation and reporting methods. For example, 

the FPL–UW database includes the rated capacity of each 

mill for every year in which the mill was in operation whether 

or not it was in operation for the entire year. 

Figure 1—Mill capacity regions in the United States. 

West

North

South

OR

WA

CA

NV

ID

MT

WY

UT

AZ NM

ND

SD

NE

KS

CO

MN

WI

IA

MI

MO

IL IN OH

PA

WV

NY

VT ME

NH

MA

CTRI

NJ

DE

MDDC

TX

OK AR

LA

MS AL GA

FL

SC

TN

KY

NC

VA
5 

However, the AF&PA data refer to “practical maximum 

capacity,” which may include changes in capacity for a portion of a year in which they are effective. Also, the AF&PA 

data generally retain for 12 months the capacities of mills that 

were shut down, whereas the FPL–UW database generally 

shows such capacities dropping to zero immediately in the 

year subsequent to closure (1 to 12 months after shut down). 

Capacity Trends for Paper, 

Paperboard, and Market Pulp 

in the United States 

Figure 3 shows that production capacity generally increased 

for paper, paperboard, and market pulp in the United States 

from 1970 to 2000, with an average compound annual increase of 2.1%. Nationwide capacity for the principal commodity groups all grew at nearly the same rate. Paper and 

market pulp capacity grew at 2.1% annually from 1970 to 

2000, while paperboard grew at 2.0% per year. 

In addition, as shown in Table 3, the rate of increase in capacity was generally decelerating with time (slower growth in 

the decade of the 1990s than in the 1970s). From 1970 

through 1980, the annual growth rate of the total capacity for 

paper, paperboard, and market pulp was about 2.4%. It 

slowed to 1.9% from 1990 to 2000. This decelerating trend 

in growth occurred for all three principal commodity groups, 

but the slowdown in capacity growth was more pronounced 

for the paper commodities than for paperboard commodities. 

Table 3 also illustrates another significant aspect of capacity 

change—expansion was not simply the result of capacity 

addition but rather it was the result of a greater rate of capacity addition than capacity reduction. Capacities expanded at 

some existing mills by the building of new machines or the 

improvement of existing machines. Also, some entirely new 

mills were built (so-called greenfield mills). At the same time, 

however, capacity declined at some existing mills, as some of 

their machines were taken out of production, while other 

mills were closed altogether. 

Figure 2—Total U.S. capacity of paper, paperboard, and 

market pulp (thousand short tons), according to FPL–

UW database and AF&PA annual capacity report. 

Table 2—Differences in U.S. capacity between FPL–UW 

database and AF&PA capacity reportsa 

Difference (fractional) 

Year Paper Paperboard Market pulp Total 

1970 0.019 0.063 (0.120) 0.022 

1971 0.007 0.031 (0.140) 0.000 

1972 0.008 0.026 (0.058) 0.009 

1973 0.008 0.018 (0.038) 0.007 

1974 0.011 0.017 (0.031) 0.009 

1975 0.008 (0.007) (0.038) (0.004) 

1976 0.011 0.026 (0.047) 0.011 

1977 0.011 0.027 0.005 0.018 

1978 0.005 0.014 (0.049) 0.003 

1979 0.021 0.044 0.003 0.029 

1980 0.015 0.034 (0.015) 0.020 

1981 0.007 0.048 (0.024) 0.021 

1982 0.022 0.032 (0.007) 0.023 

1983 0.03 0.020 (0.031) 0.018 

1984 0.013 (0.000) 0.002 0.006 

1985 (0.004) (0.005) (0.005) (0.004) 

1986 0.004 (0.020) (0.003) (0.007) 

1987 0.002 (0.020) (0.044) (0.014) 

1988 (0.017) (0.022) (0.098) (0.029) 

1989 (0.002) 0.004 (0.079) (0.019) 

1990 (0.000) (0.017) (0.146) (0.025) 

1991 0.002 (0.015) (0.129) 0.021 

1992 0.012 0.009 (0.006) 0.006 

1993 0.019 0.007 (0.017) 0.009 

1994 0.006 (0.017) 0.045 0.000 

1995 0.018 (0.013) 0.013 0.003 

1996 0.008 (0.054) 0.039 (0.017) 

1997 0.002 (0.061) 0.047 (0.023) 

1998 0.018 (0.047) 0.065 (0.042) 

1999 0.003 (0.024) 0.025 0.001 

2000 0.005 (0.005) 0.079 0.007 

a

Entries in parentheses are negative values. 

Figure 3—The capacity of paper, paperboard, and 

market pulp in the United States (thousand short tons) 

(FPL–UW database). 

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

FPL 

AF & PA

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Market pulp

Total paperboard 

Total paper
6 

The database also documents the increasing share of production capacity based exclusively on recycled fiber (100% 

recycled fiber). Figure 4 shows the percentage of capacity 

that is based exclusively on recycled fiber during the past 

30 years. These numbers do not capture all of the recycling 

capacity of the industry because a large quantity of recycled 

fiber is also blended in with processes that are based primarily 

on wood pulp, but the industry is increasingly relying on 

recycled fiber. In 1970, industry capacity based exclusively on 

recycled fiber was no more than 5,310 thousand tons per 

year. By the year 2000, it had increased to 21,811 thousand

tons per year, a four-fold increase compared with 1970. Most 

of the gain took place after the late 1980s. Capacity based 

exclusively on recycled fiber grew at more than 10% per year 

during the past 30 years, much more rapidly than capacity 

based on virgin wood pulp. 

Capacity Trends by Commodity, 

Process, and Region 

The 13 principal commodity categories recognized in the 

FPL–UW database are generally differentiated by end use 

markets as well as by process type. Table 4 summarizes 

aggregate U.S. capacity of paper and paperboard by commodity category, from 1970 to 2000, according to the FPL–

UW database. As explained previously, capacity totals from 

the FPL–UW database differ somewhat from published industry capacity data because of differences in estimation and 

reporting methods, but aggregate trends in the FPL–UW 

database generally follow the trends in actual industry capacity as reported by AF&PA. Furthermore, the database reveals 

trends in capacity by process and region, as well as by 

Table 3—Capacity addition and reduction in the United States (1970–2000)a 

1970–1980 1990–2000 

Capacity (thousand short tons) Capacity (thousand short tons) 

Grades Addition Reduction 

Net gain 

or loss

Average 

annual 

growth (%) Addition Reduction 

Net gain 

or loss

Average

annual 

growth (%) 

Total paper, paperboard, and market pulp 26,742 11,763 14,979 2.4 43,249 25,370 17,879 1.9 

Total paper 11,613 4,924 6,689 2.5 18,469 11,786 6,683 1.9 

Newsprint 1,782 381 1,401 3.7 2,097 1,424 672 1.0 

Printing and writing paper 6,011 2,180 3,831 3.2 11,914 6,527 5,387 2.0 

Uncoated groundwood 638 510 128 1.1 1,066 1,028 38 0.2 

Coated groundwood 948 431 517 2.6 1,758 1,299 459 1.1 

Uncoated freesheet 3,253 975 2,277 3.4 6,328 2,834 3,484 3.0 

Coated freesheet 1,172 264 908 4.0 2,762 1,366 1,396 3.0 

Packaging and industrial convertingb 2,203 1,482 721 1.3 2,155 2,719 −564 −1.0 

Tissue 1,617 881 736 1.3 2,303 1,116 1,188 0.3 

Total paperboard 11,233 5,491 5,741 1.9 17,912 8,389 9,523 2.3 

Containerboard 8,679 3,238 5,414 3.2 13,120 4,364 8,756 3.0 

Linerboard 5,831 1,736 4,068 3.1 8,784 2,609 6,175 3.0 

Corrugating medium 2,848 1,502 1,346 2.8 4,336 1,755 2,581 3.4 

Other paperboardc 2,554 2,253 301 0.3 4,792 4,025 767 1.0 

Total market pulp 3,896 1,348 2,548 3.4 6,868 5,195 1,673 1.7 

a

Expansion includes both expansion of existing machines and building of new machines. 

b

Includes kraft and specialty paper. 

c

Includes recycled linerboard and solid bleached board. 

Figure 4—Share of production capacity based 

exclusively on recycled fiber in the United States. 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Table 4—Aggregate U.S. annual capacities of paper, paperboard, and market pulp by commodity category according to FPL–UW mill capacity database 

Capacity (thousand short tons) 

Paper Paperboard 

Printing and writing paper 

Packaging and 

industrial paper 

Year 

Total

paper and 

paperboard Total paper News- print 

Uncoated 

groundwood 

Coated 

groundwood Uncoated freesheet Coated freesheet 

Tissue

and 

sanitary 

paper

Unbleached 

kraft paper Specialty 

Total 

paperboard Liner- board

Other 

recycled

paperboard 

Solid 

bleached

paperboard 

Corrugating 

medium

Market 

pulp

1970 55,656 26,302 3,793 1,144 2,006 6,761 2,258 4,701 3,666 1,974 29,354 12,949 7,383 4,253 4,769 6,376 1971 55,653 26,309 3,783 1,145 2,011 6,770 2,258 4,701 3,666 1,976 29,343 12,944 7,383 4,247 4,769 6,415 1972 56,851 26,765 3,860 1,151 2,049 6,862 2,335 4,756 3,669 2,083 30,086 13,187 7,440 4,214 5,246 7,065 1973 58,716 27,601 3,933 1,205 2,071 7,093 2,399 4,925 3,840 2,136 31,114 13,601 7,623 4,311 5,580 7,514 1974 60,258 28,250 4,121 1,133 2,119 7,343 2,480 4,921 3,923 2,212 32,008 14,170 7,628 4,368 5,841 7,493 1975 61,590 28,849 4,178 1,262 2,240 7,230 2,684 4,926 3,967 2,361 32,742 14,830 7,671 4,247 5,994 7,455 1976 62,447 29,526 4,168 1,324 2,253 7,773 2,672 4,938 3,992 2,406 32,920 14,680 7,928 4,422 5,890 7,534 1977 63,629 30,191 4,265 1,263 2,325 7,959 2,746 5,090 4,077 2,464 33,438 15,075 7,941 4,570 5,851 8,147 1978 64,719 30,507 4,155 1,340 2,434 8,187 2,908 5,178 3,815 2,490 34,212 15,351 7,854 4,656 6,350 8,090 1979 66,727 31,825 4,774 1,342 2,388 8,540 3,017 5,468 3,820 2,477 34,902 16,159 7,837 4,531 6,374 8,695 1980 68,001 33,028 5,193 1,272 2,523 9,038 3,166 5,459 3,961 2,415 34,973 16,914 7,363 4,581 6,115 8,845 1981 70,061 33,929 5,629 1,336 2,562 9,460 3,009 5,316 4,072 2,545 36,132 17,609 7,436 4,638 6,449 9,100 1982 72,112 35,460 6,049 1,358 3,028 9,536 3,523 5,396 4,056 2,513 36,652 17,957 7,322 4,701 6,672 9,349 1983 72,948 36,492 6,343 1,354 2,999 9,568 3,619 5,425 4,139 3,046 36,456 17,853 7,260 4,721 6,623 9,315 1984 72,932 36,761 6,195 1,387 3,057 9,802 3,578 5,550 4,139 3,055 36,171 17,527 7,311 4,720 6,613 9,861 1985 73,985 37,439 6,118 1,430 3,296 10,315 3,656 5,585 3,924 3,115 36,546 17,784 7,227 4,771 6,765 10,219 1986 75,172 38,164 5,996 1,615 3,367 10,888 3,861 5,628 3,514 3,295 37,008 18,043 7,217 4,856 6,892 10,438 1987 77,460 39,147 5,864 1,613 3,829 11,626 3,734 5,688 3,529 3,262 38,313 18,952 7,429 4,902 7,030 10,270 1988 78,975 39,508 5,911 1,781 3,914 11,581 3,915 5,987 3,306 3,113 39,467 19,499 7,424 4,974 7,569 10,124 1989 81,227 41,068 6,298 1,811 3,995 12,026 3,970 6,239 3,376 3,353 40,159 20,049 7,578 5,041 7,491 10,419 1990 83,672 42,314 6,610 1,814 4,049 12,533 4,376 6,259 3,368 3,305 41,358 20,950 7,599 5,143 7,666 9,981 1991 86,340 43,878 7,142 1,848 3,907 13,172 4,584 6,521 3,432 3,272 42,462 21,795 7,688 5,336 7,644 10,417 1992 90,404 45,537 7,248 1,606 4,285 13,972 5,413 6,914 2,753 3,347 44,867 23,309 7,693 5,720 8,145 12,241 1993 91,748 46,027 7,150 1,610 4,347 14,411 5,384 7,085 2,685 3,355 45,721 23,618 7,923 5,761 8,420 12,164 1994 92,735 46,237 7,071 1,630 4,339 14,639 5,425 7,082 2,688 3,363 46,498 24,116 7,845 5,915 8,622 12,624 1995 95,935 47,518 7,595 1,709 4,382 15,436 5,052 7,168 2,818 3,358 48,417 25,177 7,845 6,095 9,299 12,769 1996 96,073 47,542 7,616 1,709 4,723 15,291 4,763 7,187 2,755 3,498 48,531 25,513 7,072 6,396 9,550 12,907 1997 98,125 48,110 7,359 1,898 4,818 15,391 5,079 7,280 2,683 3,602 50,015 26,676 7,002 6,631 9,706 12,576 1998 100,132 49,019 7,464 1,892 4,613 15,704 5,768 7,337 2,611 3,630 51,113 26,936 6,912 6,654 10,611 12,142 1999 101,192 48,817 7,279 1,874 4,541 15,968 5,856 7,259 2,658 3,381 52,376 27,708 7,223 6,724 10,721 11,103 2000 102,429 49,413 7,282 1,852 4,506 16,447 5,847 7,517 2,606 3,356 53,016 27,133 6,993 6,563 12,327 11,925 
8 

commodity category. The following sections describe capacity trends by process and region as revealed by the FPL–UW 

database. 

Newsprint 

Newsprint refers to the category of publication papers used 

mainly for printing daily newspapers, and also used to a 

smaller extent for advertising inserts, various other commercial printing applications, and some government publications. 

Newsprint is an uncoated paper product made from highyield mechanical grades of wood pulp, such as thermomechanical pulp (TMP), chemithermomechanical pulp (CTMP), 

or groundwood pulp, often with a small fraction of bleached 

chemical pulp and also, increasingly, some recycled fiber, 

ranging up to 100% in some mills. Recycled fiber for newsprint is derived primarily from old newspapers (ONP) and to 

some extent from old magazines (OMG). Wood raw material 

for the refiner-based mechanical pulps (TMP and CTMP) is 

generally wood chips, although the older stone groundwood 

technology utilizes log bolts. Newsprint generally requires a 

high proportion of softwood fiber. This is because high-yield 

mechanical pulps tend to produce paper with less strength 

than, for example, chemical kraft pulp, but softwoods tend to 

have longer fibers than hardwood species. Longer fibers help 

provide sufficient sheet strength to avoid sheet breakage in 

high-speed printing presses. 

In the early history of the United States, newsprint was often 

made with nonwood fiber from rags or straw, but use of 

wood fiber became increasingly prevalent in the late 19th and 

early 20th century along with development of the high-yield 

stone groundwood pulping technology. Also, from the 1920s 

onward, production of newsprint expanded rapidly in Canada 

primarily to serve U.S. markets, and eventually, Canada was 

producing well over half of U.S. newsprint requirements. In 

more recent decades, use of Southern Pine and recycled 

newsprint capacity was expanded, resulting in more of the 

newsprint production coming from the United States. Only a 

small fraction of U.S. newsprint capacity remains based on 

the old stone groundwood technology. Capacity expansion of 

recent decades was based primarily on more modern mechanical pulping technology (chiefly TMP, but also CTMP) 

as well as recycling and deinking technology. Newsprint in 

the United States is made mostly from mechanical pulp or 

recycled fiber, with some bleached chemical pulp added to 

improve sheet quality and performance in modern printing 

applications. 

U.S. newsprint is usually produced in a basis weight of 30 lb 

(48.8 g/m2

), but it is available also in basis weights as low as 

24 lb (39.5 g/m2) and as high as 35 lb (56.9 g/m2). Prior to 

1974, the most common, or standard, basis weight for newsprint was 32 lb (52.1 g/m2

), but usage later shifted to 30 lb 

(48.8 g/m2) to trim costs and conserve fiber (Miller–Freeman 

1999). In 1995–1996, some leading U.S. newspapers also 

reportedly switched to a lighter weight 27-lb (43.9 g/m2) 

newsprint. 

Some products nearly identical to newsprint have higher 

brightness or a machine-calendered finish and are classified as 

uncoated groundwood paper (used for telephone directories 

and other commercial printing). Some paper machines (particularly those with soft-roll calenders or machine finishing 

capacity) can make a range of groundwood-based papers, 

including newsprint as well as calendered uncoated groundwood paper grades, and thus, capacity can fluctuate between 

these grades to a limited extent, depending on market conditions. Thus, there is some ambiguity and overlap in the reported capacities for newsprint and uncoated groundwood 

paper (discussed subsequently). Some of the groundwood 

paper grades and newsprint are so closely associated that it is 

often difficult to accurately determine actual capacity by mill 

location according to industry sources. 

In the United States, the average amount of recycled fiber in 

newsprint used for newspapers increased from just 10% in 

1989 to more than 28% in 1999 according to the Newspaper 

Association of America. In 1990, only one newsprint mill in 

Canada was reportedly producing newsprint made from 

recycled fiber, but more recently, 21 mills in Canada and 

18 mills in the United States are reportedly using primarily 

recycled fiber (Miller–Freeman 1999). 

On a per capita basis, U.S. newsprint consumption was increasing in the 1970s and early 1980s, but per capita consumption peaked during the late 1980s. During the past 

decade, growth in U.S. newsprint consumption was generally 

slower than growth in consumption of other paper commodities. Consequently, U.S. newsprint capacity increased from 

7% of total U.S. paper and paperboard capacity in 1970 to 

nearly 9% in the early 1980s, but newsprint capacity receded 

back to 7% by 2000. As shown in Table 4, the FPL–UW 

database indicates that newsprint capacity increased from 

3.793 million tons in 1970 to 7.282 million tons in 2000, 

peaking at around 7.6 million tons in the mid-1990s. By 

comparison, the AF&PA capacity survey indicates that actual 

U.S. newsprint capacity was 3.533 million tons in 1970 and 

7.404 million tons in 2000, with a peak capacity of just more 

than 7.4 million tons in 1997. The AF&PA data indicate that 

actual U.S. newsprint capacity in recent years was about 2% 

less than the aggregate U.S. newsprint capacity shown in the 

FPL–UW database. 

Figure 5 illustrates trends in U.S. newsprint capacity by 

region from 1970 to 2000. The South has dominated U.S. 

newsprint capacity with 56% of total capacity in 1970 and 

57% in 2000, while newsprint capacity in the North receded 

from around 20% of U.S. capacity in 1970 to 11% in 2000. 

Capacity in the West rose from around 25% in the early 

1970s to upwards of 35% in the early 1980s, but capacity in 

the West receded to around 32% in 2000. 
9 

Figure 6 illustrates trends from 1970 to 2000 in U.S. newsprint capacity by process, identifying four principal process 

types. The four process types include older stone groundwood pulp (usually blended with about 20% to 30% bleached 

chemical pulp), TMP (often blended with around 10% 

bleached chemical pulp), CTMP, and 100% recycled fiber. As 

noted previously, some recycled fiber is increasingly being 

blended with wood pulp at many newsprint mills that have 

used primarily wood pulp. Thus, even though 100% recycled 

newsprint accounts for one-third of U.S. newsprint capacity 

in the year 2000 according to the FPL–UW database, recycled fiber was about half of total fiber content overall in U.S. 

newsprint production (AF&PA 2000). 

According to the FPL–UW database, the most significant 

apparent shifts in newsprint production technology included a 

shift in growth away from groundwood technology toward 

TMP capacity from the late 1970s to late 1980s and a subsequent shift toward capacity based on recycled fiber. The most 

rapid overall growth in newsprint capacity occurred for recycled newsprint, which grew from 0.331 million tons in 1970 

to 2.384 million tons in 2000, an average annual compound 

growth of 6.8% per year. Newsprint capacity based on TMP 

grew a little more slowly at a compound growth rate of 5.8% 

per year, from 0.628 million tons in 1970 to 3.420 million 

tons in 2000. In addition, capacity based on CTMP appeared 

in the 1990s, but growth in CTMP capacity appears to have 

been limited by expansion of recycled newsprint capacity. 

Capacity based on the older groundwood pulping technology 

has generally declined since the mid-1970s. A number of mills 

using the groundwood process have incorporated more efficient pressurized groundwood technology. Thus, the stone 

groundwood process has not altogether disappeared, although newsprint capacity has shifted toward mechanical 

pulping processes based on mechanical refiners (the TMP and 

CTMP processes). Newsprint capacity based on the stone 

groundwood process decreased from 2.833 million tons in 

1970 to 1.293 million tons in 2000. In addition, many U.S. 

newsprint mills that reportedly use the TMP process also 

employ some chemical pretreatment of wood chips in addition to steam pretreatment before refining, and thus, they may 

be using technology that effectively approaches CTMP. 

Figure 7 gives the locations of U.S. newsprint capacity in 

1970 and 2000, showing major shifts that have occurred in 

the regional distribution of newsprint capacity in recent decades. While U.S. newsprint capacity in recent decades was 

located primarily in the U.S. South, there was a significant 

shift in the South from the groundwood pulping process to 

the TMP process. By the year 2000, there was a more varied 

mix of processes in the South, with some capacity based on 

recycled fiber, groundwood pulp, and also CTMP. Newsprint 

capacity expansion in the West was based mainly on TMP 

and recycled fiber, whereas expansion in the North was based 

on recycling. 

Coated and Uncoated 

Groundwood Papers 

Coated and uncoated groundwood papers are two commodity categories within the broad group known as printing and 

writing paper (which includes also coated and uncoated free 

sheet paper). According to traditional industry standards, 

groundwood paper grades have mechanical pulp fiber content 

higher than 10% but lower than 65% (whereas newsprint has 

more than 65% mechanical pulp content according to the 

U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule). The term free sheet refers 

to paper grades that are produced primarily with low yield 

bleached chemical pulps, with generally less than 10% mechanical pulp content, thus largely free of lignin or wood 

particles commonly associated with mechanical pulp (hence 

the terms wood free or free sheet). 

The term groundwood paper is now somewhat outdated 

because it simply refers in this context to paper produced 

with a substantial fraction of high yield mechanical pulp 

(but not necessarily groundwood per se). Capacity was based 

on stone groundwood in earlier times, but most U.S. groundwood paper capacity is now based on pulping 

Figure 5—Regional capacity of newsprint in the 

United States (thousand short tons). 

Figure 6—Newsprint capacity by process in the 

United States (thousand short tons). 

0 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

5000 

6000 

7000

8000 

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 

West 

South 

North 

0 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

5000 

6000 

7000 

8000 

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 

Groundwood 

TMP 

100% recycled 

CTMP 
10 

technology using mechanical refiners (TMP or CTMP) rather 

than the stone groundwood process. Uncoated groundwood 

paper is also known as uncoated mechanical, for example. 

While some uncoated groundwood paper grades are similar 

to newsprint, uncoated groundwood paper generally requires 

additional processing steps (such as machine calendering), 

lower mechanical pulp and higher chemical pulp content, and 

usually additional sheet fillers or pigments. Although 

newsprint typically contains very little inorganic fillers, uncoated groundwood paper may contain upwards of 10% 

inorganic filler and pigments by weight. Coated groundwood 

paper typically contains up to one-third inorganic coatings 

and fillers (primarily kaolin clay coatings to impart a smooth 

and glossy print surface for magazines). Surface sizing is also 

applied to some grades of uncoated groundwood paper to 

improve strength and impart water resistance. With higher 

Figure 7—Location of newsprint capacity by process in the United States 

in 1970 and 2000. 

Groundwood 

TMP 

100% recycled 

CTMP 

Process 

800 

400 

600 

200 

100 

50 

 Capacity (1,000 tons/year) 

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

1970

2000

"

"

"

" ""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"
11 

bleached chemical pulp content, the uncoated groundwood 

paper grades have higher brightness levels than newsprint, 

ranging in brightness index from 62 to 72 according to the 

Elrepho test standard2

 compared with newsprint's typical 

range of 56 to 62 Elrepho (Miller–Freeman 1999). Coated 

groundwood paper grades have generally higher brightness, 

ranging typically from 68 to 84 Elrepho for lightweight 

coated paper for example, while free sheet paper grades 

generally have even higher brightness levels. 

To some extent, technological advances and mill conversions 

are blurring traditional distinctions among products such as 

newsprint and groundwood paper grades. There is active 

competition for market share at the margins of these commodity categories. As discussed previously, some newsprint 

producers have equipped their machines to switch from 

standard newsprint to uncoated groundwood paper or higher 

quality products such as “smooth news” or “super news.” 

Although the magazine market in the United States has been 

served primarily by lightweight coated groundwood paper, 

producers of uncoated groundwood paper have been expanding in that market with supercalendered or glossy machinefinished grades. 

Uncoated groundwood paper is used primarily in commercial 

printing and publication applications. The more traditional 

segments of the uncoated groundwood sector are directory 

paper (used commonly in telephone books, for example) and 

paperback book paper used in publication of inexpensive 

paperback books. Also widely used in commercial printing 

are so-called supercalendered publication papers, used primarily in publication of advertising inserts for newspapers, 

catalogs, some magazines, and in other rotogravure and 

offset commercial printing applications that do not require the 

sheet properties of coated paper or high brightness of free 

sheet paper. 

Coated groundwood papers are represented by the No. 4 and 

No. 5 grades of coated paper (No. 1–3 are primarily coated 

free sheet). The No. 4 grade is made with mechanical pulp or 

a combination of mechanical and wood free chemical pulp. 

The No. 5 grade is usually a coated mechanical pulp product 

(with the pulp fraction consisting of usually at least 80% 

mechanical pulp). In either case, upwards of one-third of the 

product weight typically consists of clay coatings and fillers. 

Coated groundwood paper is generally coated on two sides 

and is used mostly for magazines, catalogs, advertising brochures and inserts, and other types of commercial printing. 

The term lightweight coated (LWC) is often used interchangeably with coated groundwood (CGW), though the 

_______________ 

2

The Zeiss Elrepho brightness test produces a measure of 

light reflectance relative to a standard reference. The Zeiss 

Elrepho photometer and brightness test is used internationally 

and is basically the same as the brightness test standard established by the International Organization for Standardization 

(ISO).

range of basis weights for CGW grades is greater than that 

for LWC grades. 

Uncoated groundwood paper capacity increased in the United 

States from 1.15 million tons in 1970 to 1.85 million tons in 

2000 according to the FPL–UW database, an average compound annual growth rate of about 1.6% (Table 4). By comparison, data published in the AF&PA capacity surveys indicate that actual uncoated groundwood capacity was 

1.23 million tons in 1970 and 2.04 million tons in 2000. After 

a fairly steady increase from 1970 to 1990, trends in U.S. 

uncoated groundwood paper capacity appear to have become 

more erratic in the 1990s according to the FPL–UW database. Capacity appears to have reached 1.85 million tons in 

1991 but then appears to have dropped sharply in the early 

1990s (to 1.61 million tons in 1993). It then appears to have 

recovered to about 1.90 million tons by 1997 and then receded to 1.85 million tons by the year 2000. Actual uncoated 

groundwood paper capacity (reported by AF&PA) did not 

decline but rather continued to increase in the early 1990s, 

from 1.97 million tons in 1991 to 2.31 million tons in 1997 

(more than 20% higher than data in the FPL–UW database by 

1997). Although capacity receded to 2.04 million tons in the 

year 2000 according to the AF&PA capacity survey, the 

actual industry capacity data are still 10% higher than indicated by the FPL–UW database. 

As discussed previously, discrepancies between actual industry capacity data and the FPL–UW database are probably due 

in part to differences in data sources, and they may also be 

due to blurring of distinctions between uncoated groundwood 

and other similar paper grades, such as newsprint or coated 

groundwood. In general, there is much less of a discrepancy 

between the FPL–UW database and the AF&PA capacity 

survey for the aggregate total of newsprint, uncoated 

groundwood, and coated groundwood paper capacity (only 

1% difference for most years in the late 1990s). This observation tends to support a view that capacity data reported in 

published sources for individual mills may not reveal many of 

the recent shifts in mill capacities among newsprint, uncoated 

groundwood, and coated groundwood grades. However, the 

FPL–UW database is probably fairly accurate in tracking 

shifts in production capacities by process and region for the 

totality of newsprint and groundwood paper grades. 

Figure 8 illustrates trends in U.S. uncoated groundwood 

paper capacity by region from 1970 to 2000 according to the 

FPL–UW database. The North has dominated uncoated 

groundwood capacity with 82% of total U.S. capacity in 

1970 and 65% in 2000, but uncoated groundwood capacity in 

the South expanded rapidly from none in the early 1970s to 

around 20% of total U.S. capacity in 2000. Capacity in the 

West has ranged between less than 10% and more than 20% 

of total U.S. uncoated groundwood capacity. 

Figure 9 shows the evolution of uncoated groundwood paper 

capacity by process, according to the FPL–UW database. 
12 

Three general process types were identified: [1] uncoated 

groundwood capacity integrated with both mechanical pulping and chemical pulping capacity, [2] uncoated groundwood 

capacity integrated with mechanical pulping capacity but no 

chemical pulping capacity, necessitating purchase of market 

pulp, and [3] uncoated groundwood capacity based on recycled fiber. Some recycled fiber is blended with wood pulp at 

some uncoated groundwood mills, but generally, less recycled 

fiber is used at these mills than at newsprint mills. Capacity at 

mills integrated with mechanical and chemical pulping increased by about half as much as capacity at mills that use 

mechanical pulping and purchase market pulp (with average 

compound growth rates of 0.9% for the former and 1.9% for 

the latter). Capacity based on recycled fiber appears to have 

receded in the 1970s but then increased rapidly since the mid1980s, with an average compound growth rate of 3.5% from 

1970 to 2000. 

Figure 10 illustrates geographical shifts in U.S. uncoated 

groundwood paper capacity at mill locations between 1970 

and 2000. United States uncoated groundwood capacity was 

located entirely at mill locations in the North and West in 

1970, and at that time, some of the mills in the North were 

integrated with chemical pulping capacity although many of 

the mills purchased market pulp. By 2000, however, a significant share of uncoated groundwood capacity was located at 

several mill locations in the South, although most of the 

capacity was still located in the North. Mills in the South 

were all integrated with chemical pulping capacity, whereas 

none of the mills in the North still had integrated chemical 

pulping capacity in 2000. Instead, mills in the North had 

shifted to purchasing market pulp. 

Coated groundwood paper capacity in the United States 

increased from 2.01 million tons in 1970 to 4.51 million tons 

in 2000, an average compound annual growth rate of about 

2.7% according to the FPL–UW database (Table 4). The 

FPL–UW database indicates that coated groundwood capacity peaked at 4.82 million tons in 1997. By comparison, the 

AF&PA capacity surveys indicate that actual coated groundwood capacity was 4.66 million tons in 2000, just 3% higher 

than indicated by the FPL–UW database. Also, actual coated 

groundwood capacity did not peak in 1997 as suggested by 

the FPL–UW database, but rather it stood at only 4.51 million tons in 1997 according to the AF&PA capacity surveys 

and it increased only gradually through the late 1990s. As 

suggested earlier, discrepancies for coated groundwood 

paper capacity probably reflect blurring of distinctions among 

capacities reported for newsprint, uncoated groundwood, and 

coated groundwood paper grades and the tendency of some 

mills to shift production from one category to another. 

Figure 11 illustrates trends in U.S. coated groundwood paper 

capacity by region from 1970 to 2000 according to the FPL–

UW database. The North has dominated coated groundwood 

capacity, with around 75% to 80% of total U.S. capacity 

throughout 1970 to 2000. Capacity in the South declined in 

the 1970s from around 19% of total U.S. capacity in 1970 to 

around 12% in the late 1970s, but then capacity increased in 

the South, reaching about 25% of total U.S. capacity in the 

year 2000. A relatively small amount of coated groundwood 

capacity existed in the West in the 1970s and 1980s, but 

capacity in the West declined to zero around 1990. 

Figure 12 shows the evolution of U.S. coated groundwood 

paper capacity by process, according to the FPL–UW database. Two general types of processes were identified: 

[1] coated groundwood capacity with integrated on-site 

mechanical pulping and chemical pulping capacity, and 

[2] coated groundwood capacity with integrated mechanical 

pulping capacity but no chemical pulping capacity, necessitating purchase of market pulp. Some recycled fiber also may be 

blended with wood pulp at some coated groundwood mills, 

but there does not appear to be any coated groundwood 

capacity based exclusively on recycled fiber in the United 

States. Capacity at mills with integrated mechanical pulping 

and chemical pulping capacity declined in the 1970s but then 

increased significantly starting in the early 1980s. Capacity 

based on mechanical pulping and purchased market pulp 

appears to have peaked in the late 1980s. Figure 13 illustrates 

Figure 8—Regional capacity of uncoated groundwood 

paper in the United States (thousand short tons). 

Figure 9—Uncoated groundwood paper capacity by 

process in the United States (thousand short tons). 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

1400 

1600 

1800 

2000 

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 

West 

South 

North 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

1400 

1600 

1800 

2000 

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

100% recycled 

Mech. pulp with market pulp 

Integrated mech. & 

chem. pulp 
13 

Figure 10—Location of uncoated groundwood capacity by process in the 

United States in 1970 and 2000. 

Integrated mech. & chemi. 

Mech. pulp, using mkt. pulp 

100% recycled 

Process 

300 

100 

200 

75 

50 

25 

 Capacity (1,000 tons/year) 

1970

2000

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"
14 

geographical shifts in U.S. coated groundwood paper capacity between 1970 and 2000. United States coated groundwood capacity increased at mill locations in the North (primarily in the central Lake States and northern New England) 

and in the South (south central region). In the 1970s and 

1980s, capacity existed also at one mill location in the West, 

but there has been no coated groundwood capacity in the 

West since 1990. 

Coated and Uncoated 

Free Sheet Papers 

Coated and uncoated free sheet papers are the remaining two 

commodity categories within the larger group known as 

printing and writing paper (which also includes coated and 

uncoated groundwood paper). According to traditional industry standards, free sheet paper grades are produced primarily 

with low-yield bleached chemical pulps, predominantly 

bleached kraft (sulfate) pulp but also sulfite pulp, with generally less than 10% mechanical pulp content. Whereas newsprint and the groundwood paper grades depend heavily on 

softwood fiber to impart adequate sheet strength with high 

yield mechanical pulps, free sheet paper grades are often 

made primarily with hardwood pulp or a mix of hardwood 

and softwood pulps, predominately bleached kraft. Some free 

sheet mills use pulp from recycled fiber (deinked pulp), but 

use of recycled fiber is relatively low in free sheet paper 

because of the cost of contaminant removal and high product 

quality standards. 

Uncoated free sheet paper has maintained a dominant share 

of capacity within the printing and writing paper group, 

accounting for more than half of all printing and writing paper 

capacity throughout 1970 to 2000 (Table 4). In the United 

States, office reprographic paper for copiers and printers is 

the dominant use for uncoated free sheet paper, accounting 

for about one-third of production (Miller–Freeman 1999). 

Other large end-uses include offset printing paper for commercial printing and books, business forms, and other converted paper products such as envelopes, stationary, and 

writing tablet paper. The use of bleached chemical pulp provides uncoated free sheet paper with high brightness and 

uniformity, while high proportions of hardwood fiber help 

provide sheet smoothness and good printing characteristics. 

Uncoated free sheet capacity increased in the United States 

from 6.8 million tons in 1970 to 16.4 million tons in 2000, an 

average compound annual growth rate of about 3.0% according to the FPL–UW database (Table 4). The database indicates that uncoated free sheet capacity continued to increase 

steadily throughout the period from 1970 to 2000, although 

capacity growth was slowly decelerating with time (Table 3). 

In the FPL–UW database, uncoated free sheet encompasses 

so-called thin papers and some bleached bristols (heavy card 

stock paper) as well as the other common uncoated free sheet 

paper grades. In general, total capacity trends for uncoated 

free sheet in the FPL–UW database agree closely with the 

trends reported by the AF&PA capacity surveys for total 

capacity of uncoated free sheet, thin papers, and bleached 

bristols. The AF&PA capacity survey indicated that actual 

capacity was 16.8 million tons in 2000 for all uncoated free 

sheet paper, thin papers, and bleached bristols. Although the 

total industry capacity appears to be about 2% higher than 

estimates in the FPL–UW database, the apparent discrepancy 

is probably because some of the capacity for bleached bristols 

was included in solid bleached paperboard (some mills produce bristols and bleached paperboard). 

Figure 14 illustrates trends in U.S. uncoated free sheet paper 

capacity by region from 1970 to 2000 according to the 

FPL–UW database. The North dominated uncoated free sheet 

capacity in 1970, with around 64% of total U.S. capacity, but 

capacity increased in the South, growing from around 25% of 

total U.S. capacity in 1970 to around 50% in 2000. Capacity 

in the North peaked in the early 1990s and then declined to 

around 38% of total U.S. capacity in 2000. The West has 

accounted for a comparatively smaller fraction of U.S. uncoated free sheet capacity, around 11% in 1970, peaking at 

15% around 1990 but dropping back to 12% by 2000. 

Figure 11—Regional capacity of coated groundwood 

paper in the United States (thousand short tons). 

Figure 12—Coated groundwood paper capacity by 

process in the United States (thousand short tons). 

0 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

5000 

6000 

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

West 

South 

North 

0 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

5000 

6000 

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 

Integrated mech. & chem. pulp 

Mech. pulp with market pulp 
15 

Figure 13—Location of coated groundwood capacity by process in the 

United States in 1970 and 2000. 

Integrated 

Mechanical/market 

Process 

600 

200 

400 

100 

50 

25 

 Capacity (1,000 tons/year) 

1970

2000

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

" " "

"

"

"
16 

Figure 15 shows the evolution of U.S. uncoated free sheet 

capacity by process, according to the FPL–UW database. 

Four general types of processes were identified: [1] 100% 

recycled fiber, [2] capacity based on market pulp, [3] capacity 

integrated with bleached kraft (sulfate) pulping, and 

[4] capacity integrated with bleached sulfite pulping. Capacity 

at mills with integrated kraft pulping increased more significantly than any other type of process, more than tripling. This 

capacity increased from around 37% of total U.S. uncoated 

free sheet capacity in 1970 to 60% by the late 1990s. Capacity based on sulfite technology receded from 17% of total 

U.S. capacity in 1970 to less than 5% in 2000. Capacity 

based on recycled fiber and market pulp approximately doubled from 1970 to 2000, but their total share of U.S. capacity 

receded from around 45% in 1970 to around 35% by the late 

1990s (25% based on market pulp and 10% based on 

recycled fiber). 

Figure 16 illustrates geographical shifts in U.S. uncoated free 

sheet paper capacity at mill locations between 1970 and 

2000. The largest numbers of U.S. uncoated free sheet mills 

have existed in the North, where many small- to mediumsized mills remain in operation. Also, a majority of mills in the 

North are based on purchased market pulp. Figure 16 shows 

that most of the growth of recent decades in U.S. uncoated 

free sheet capacity was in the South. Generally, larger mills 

characterize capacity in the South with papermaking capacity 

typically integrated with kraft pulping capacity. Most of the 

U.S. capacity expansion in uncoated free sheet between 1970 

and 2000 was based on kraft pulp in the South. In 1970, there 

were still quite a few mills with integrated sulfite pulping 

capacity (particularly in the North Central region and the 

West), but the number of such mills has declined as kraft 

pulping capacity has expanded in recent decades. Capacity 

based on recycled fiber also increased notably between 1970 

and 2000, particularly at mill locations in the eastern United 

States, but capacity based entirely on recycled fiber remains a 

relatively small element of total uncoated free sheet capacity. 

United States coated free sheet paper capacity more than 

doubled from 1970 to 2000, outpacing the average rate of 

growth in U.S. paper and paperboard capacity (Table 4). 

Coated free sheet paper is generally the highest value end of 

the printing and writing paper spectrum. Coated free sheet 

paper is used almost entirely in commercial printing applications such as annual reports, product sales brochures, or 

advertising pamphlets that generally demand high image 

quality and color printing. 

Figure 17 illustrates trends in U.S. coated free sheet paper 

capacity by region from 1970 to 2000 according to the FPL–

UW database. United States coated free sheet capacity and 

growth have been concentrated primarily in the North, where 

hardwood pulpwood supply predominates, with relatively 

modest capacity growth in the South and West. 

Figure 18 shows the evolution of U.S. coated free sheet 

paper capacity by process, according to the FPL–UW database. Three general types of processes were identified: 

[1] 100% recycled fiber, [2] capacity based on market pulp, 

and [3] capacity integrated with bleached kraft (sulfate) 

pulping. Most of the growth from 1970 to 2000 was at mills 

with integrated kraft pulping capacity. Figure 19 illustrates 

geographical shifts in U.S. coated free sheet capacity at mill 

locations between 1970 and 2000. Although the number of 

coated free sheet mills did not change significantly, the 

capacity at many mill locations increased substantially. 

Tissue and Sanitary Paper 

Tissue and sanitary paper includes bathroom tissue, paper 

toweling, facial tissue, napkins, and also absorbent sanitary 

products such as diapers and adult hygiene products. Unlike 

many other categories of paper and paperboard that are 

produced primarily as global commodities in large bulk rolls 

or reams, most tissue and sanitary paper products in the 

United States are converted at the mills into packaged 

consumer goods (boxed and packaged for final retail sale). 

Figure 14—Regional capacity of uncoated free sheet 

paper in the United States (thousand short tons). 

Figure 15—Uncoated free sheet paper capacity by 

process in the United States (thousand short tons). 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

West 

South

North

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

100% recycled 

Market pulp 

Integrated kraft 

Integrated sulphite 
17 

Figure 16—Location of uncoated free sheet capacity by process in the 

United States in 1970 and 2000. 

900 

400 

600 

200 

50 

30 

 Capacity (1,000 tons/year) 

1970

2000

Kraft 

100% recycled 

Market pulp 

Sulfite 

Process 

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !! ! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

! ! ! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!
18 

The consumer orientation of product output and product 

differentiation coupled with limited foreign competition in 

U.S. markets have historically contributed to relatively high 

profit margins and stable growth rates for U.S tissue paper 

producers. 

Figure 20 illustrates trends in U.S. tissue and sanitary paper 

capacity by region from 1970 to 2000 according to the FPL–

UW database. Most of the U.S. tissue and sanitary paper 

capacity has been concentrated in the North, but most of the 

growth in capacity of recent decades has occurred in the 

South. Consequently, the share of total U.S. capacity located 

in the North receded from 66% in 1970 to 47% in 2000, 

while the share of capacity in the South increased from 17% 

to 37%. The share of total U.S. capacity located in the West 

remained relatively constant, between 14% and 17%. 

Figure 21 shows the evolution of U.S. tissue and sanitary 

paper capacity by process according to the FPL–UW 

database. Three general categories of production capacity or 

process types were identified: [1] capacity integrated with 

chemical pulping, primarily kraft pulping, [2] 100% recycled 

fiber, and [3] purchased market pulp. Although capacity 

based on market pulp increased in the 1970s, capacity growth 

since the mid-1980s has been based primarily on recycled 

fiber. Very little capacity growth from 1970 to 2000 was at 

mills with integrated chemical pulping, although capacity also 

did not decline substantially at such mills during that period. 

Figure 22 illustrates geographical shifts in U.S. tissue and 

sanitary paper capacity at mill locations between 1970 and 

2000. The largest number of U.S. tissue mills and the largest 

share of total U.S. capacity were in the North. However, the 

distribution of process types and the range in sizes of mills in 

the North exhibited only modest change between 1970 and 

2000. Most of the capacity in the North was based on recycled fiber. Most of the capacity in the West was based on 

integrated chemical pulping (mainly in the Northwest) and to 

a smaller extent on recycled fiber. In 1970, most of the capacity in the South was based on integrated chemical pulping, 

but most of the expansion in capacity in the South was based 

on recycled fiber. By the year 2000, mills in the South were 

generally larger than mills in the North. 

Specialty Packaging and 

Industrial Paper 

Specialty packaging and industrial papers include a diverse 

range of paper products used in a variety of industrial and 

packaging end-uses. Products include pressure-sensitive 

release paper or release liners, food wrapping paper such as 

greaseproof wrapping and glassine paper (wax paper), flexible packaging paper, label paper, abrasive paper (for sandpaper), masking tape and other self-adhesive paper, gasket and 

filter paper, saturating kraft paper used in decorative laminates, and many other products. The mills in this sector usually specialize in producing products tailored to meet unique 

customer requirements and specifications. Because of the 

wide spectrum of product applications and manufacturing 

requirements and because there are many smaller mills with 

varied production processes, there was no attempt to categorize capacity by process type for the specialty packaging and 

industrial paper mills in the FPL–UW database. For the most 

part, production capacity is based on integrated pulping and 

papermaking facilities (mostly kraft pulp but typically sulfite 

pulp in the case of glassine and wax papers). Capacity is also 

based on purchased market pulp at many smaller mill locations, and in some cases, mills use recycled fiber. In addition, 

bleached kraft packaging paper capacity is included within 

specialty packaging and industrial paper capacity in the 

FPL–UW database. In general, specialty packaging and industrial paper mills are noted for their diverse variety of fiber 

sources, papermaking technology, and coating and finishing 

operations (Miller–Freeman 1999). 

Figure 17—Regional capacity of coated free sheet 

paper in the United States (thousand short tons). 

Figure 18—Coated free sheet paper capacity by 

process in the United States (thousand short tons). 

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

100% recycled 

Market pulp

Kraft 

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

West 

South 

North 
19 

Figure 19—Location of coated free sheet capacity by process in the 

United States in 1970 and 2000. 

Kraft 

Market pulp 

100% recycled 

Process 

600 

300 

450 

150 

75 

30 

 Capacity (1,000 tons/year) 

1970

2000

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" ""

"

" "

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

" "

" "

"
20 

Figure 23 illustrates trends in U.S. specialty packaging and 

industrial paper capacity by region from 1970 to 2000 according to the FPL–UW database. Until the late 1990s, the 

largest share of U.S. capacity was concentrated in the North, 

but most of the growth in capacity of recent decades occurred in the South. The North’s share of total U.S. capacity 

declined from 67% in 1970 to 42% in 2000, while the 

South’s share of capacity increased from 17% to 45%, 

surpassing the North. Capacity in the West remained in the 

range of 12% and 17% of total U.S. capacity. 

Figure 24 illustrates geographical shifts in specialty packaging 

and industrial paper capacity at U.S. mill locations between 

1970 and 2000. The largest number of mills and largest share 

of total U.S. capacity existed in the North up until the late 

1990s. The distribution of mill locations and the range in sizes 

of mills in the North exhibited only modest change between 

1970 and 2000, with the closure of some smaller mills mostly 

in the Northeast. Capacity expansion in the South was 

concentrated at a much smaller number of mills that were 

relatively larger than mills in the North on average. 

Kraft Packaging Paper 

In the FPL–UW database, kraft packaging paper capacity 

includes only unbleached kraft paper grades (bleached kraft 

packaging paper capacity was included within specialty packaging and industrial paper). As such, kraft packaging paper 

includes primarily grocery bag and sack paper, shipping sack 

paper (such as multiwall shipping sacks used for shipping 

animal feed, flour, cement, and other bulk materials), and a 

relatively small volume of unbleached kraft wrapping paper. 

The markets for unbleached kraft paper, particularly in grocery bags and sack paper, have suffered from significant 

substitution by plastic bags, and production capacity has been 

generally declining for the past 20 years. However, the rate of 

decline was much slower in the 1990s than in the 1980s. 

Figure 25 illustrates trends in U.S. (unbleached) kraft packaging paper capacity by region from 1970 to 2000 according to 

the FPL–UW database. By far the largest share of U.S. capacity was concentrated in the South with unbleached kraft 

pulp made primarily from southern pines, although capacity 

was declining since the early 1980s. In some cases, shifting 

production from kraft packaging paper to kraft linerboard 

caused capacity reductions in the South. A sizable share of 

capacity was also located in the West where other softwood 

timber species are common. The relatively long and flexible 

fibers from softwood species help provide sheet strength that 

is important in products such as grocery bag and sack paper. 

Relatively little capacity was located in the North, where 

hardwood species predominate in pulpwood supply. 

Figure 26 shows the evolution of U.S. kraft packaging paper 

capacity by process according to the FPL–UW database. 

Two general types of processes were identified: [1] capacity 

integrated with unbleached kraft pulping, and [2] 100% 

recycled fiber. Even as overall U.S. kraft packaging paper 

capacity has been declining, the share of capacity based on 

recycled fiber has been increasing since the mid-1980s. 

Figure 27 illustrates geographical shifts in kraft packaging 

paper capacity at U.S. mill locations between 1970 and 2000. 

The largest number of mills and largest share of total U.S. 

capacity were in the South followed by the West. Mills in the 

North were generally much smaller on average than mills in 

the South and West, and mills in the North were based primarily on recycled fiber, whereas mill capacity in the South 

and West was primarily based on integrated kraft pulping. 

Linerboard (and Other Unbleached 

Kraft Paperboard) 

Linerboard production capacity in the United States 

(including other unbleached kraft paperboard and recycled 

linerboard) was in excess of 27 million tons in the year 2000, 

which is greater than any other single commodity category 

of paper or paperboard. Linerboard is paperboard that is 

used primarily as the flat facing material in corrugated 

Figure 20—Regional capacity of tissue and sanitary 

paper in the United States (thousand short tons). 

Figure 21—Tissue and sanitary paper capacity by 

process in the United States (thousand short tons). 

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

West 

South

North

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000 

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Integrated chemi. pulp 

Market pulp 

100% recycled 
21 

Figure 22—Location of tissue and sanitary paper capacity by process in the 

United States in 1970 and 2000. 

Market pulp 

100% recycled 

Integrated chemical pulp 

Process 

500 

250 

350 

150 

50 

25 

 Capacity (1,000 tons/year) 

1970

2000

"

"

" "

"

" ""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" " "

"""

""

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

" "

" "

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

" ""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"""

"

"

"

" " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

" ""

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

" "

"

"

"
22 

containerboard. As such, linerboard is combined with corrugating medium (the fluted or corrugated inner layer of containerboard) to produce corrugated boxes and other corrugated shipping containers. Both linerboard and corrugating 

medium are produced at typically large paperboard mills that 

ship these commodities in large bulk rolls to corrugating and 

converting plants (numerous smaller plants across the country 

that combine linerboard and corrugating medium and convert 

them into corrugated containerboard and corrugated containers). In the FPL–UW database, linerboard capacity also 

includes all other unbleached kraft paperboard capacity. 

Other unbleached kraft paperboard is produced mainly for 

folding boxboard and other applications, less than 10% of 

total output. 

The United States is by far the largest producer of linerboard 

in the world, and in recent decades, production capacity has 

undergone significant growth and evolution in technology. 

Both linerboard and corrugating medium have been produced 

commercially in the United States for corrugated shipping 

containers since at least the early part of the 20th century. 

The gradual substitution of efficient corrugated shipping 

containers for the more traditional wooden boxes or wooden 

crates in the early 20th century was itself a remarkable 

achievement in conservation of wood resources, as corrugated boxes typically use much less wood raw material than 

wooden crates per unit volume. During the latter half of the 

20th century, corrugated boxes and shipping containers 

eventually became the dominant medium for shipment of 

most goods in the U.S. economy. Along the way, innovations 

in box technology facilitated the expansion of markets for 

corrugated shipping containers, such as the development of 

moisture-resistant boxes for shipping fruits and vegetables. 

Key to the expansion of corrugated containerboard markets 

was a system of uniform freight classification and shipping 

standards for corrugated boxes adopted by the rail and trucking industries early in the 20th century. The shipping standards helped establish uniform tests for certification of box 

performance, such as the mullen burst test and basis weight 

standards, used traditionally to rate the strength performance 

of corrugated boxes. Box classification standards and tests 

assured the rail, trucking, and warehousing industries of 

adequate protection for packaged goods, facilitating bonding 

or insurance of goods in transit. However, by the 1970s, it 

had become apparent that shipping and warehousing systems 

were changing, as corrugated boxes were increasingly being 

shipped in stacks or unitized pallet loads, with boxes often 

stacked on one another in warehouses and in transit. The 

risks of damage to goods in transit had changed. The performance of boxes in terms of compression strength (resisting 

the effect of crushing by compressive forces) was eventually 

recognized as more important in many cases than the standard burst test (designed to ensure that the box contents 

would not spill if the box was dropped). Beginning in the 

1970s, the freight classification committees of the rail and 

trucking industries began to consider revision of box standards, eventually resulting in approval of new rules (in 1991) 

allowing box producers to replace the mullen burst test with 

compression strength standards and also eliminating minimal 

basis weight requirements. Technological developments in 

paperboard production and box design had already shown by 

then that it was possible to produce lighter weight linerboard 

that offered superior compression strength in corrugated 

boxes (so-called high performance linerboard). 

To a large extent, enhancement of the production efficiency 

and performance of linerboard was facilitated in recent decades by development of improved paper machine technology, 

most notably the advent of extended nip or high-intensity 

pressing technology in the early 1980s, and also by the development of multi-ply linerboard. In the linerboard industry 

prior to the 1980s, kraft linerboard was produced almost 

exclusively from unbleached softwood kraft pulp to ensure 

good strength performance. With conventional papermaking 

technology prior to the 1980s, the long and flexible softwood 

fibers assured good tensile strength in linerboard, enhancing 

the burst test performance of corrugated boxes. At that time, 

linerboard was sometimes made from recycled fiber, but 

recycled linerboard was known as testliner, because of the 

need for more frequent testing and the recognition that recycled fibers generally provided inferior strength performance 

relative to virgin kraft. The advent of extended nip pressing 

technology in the early 1980s, coupled with ongoing revision 

in freight rules, changed the production possibilities by demonstrating that it was possible to produce linerboard with 

higher compression strength while incorporating significantly 

higher proportions of hardwood pulp, recycled fiber, or 

higher yield softwood pulp. The lower cost of hardwood 

pulpwood and recycled fiber also provided economic incentive for adoption of the new press technology in linerboard. 

At the same time, multi-ply sheet forming technology was 

facilitating production of linerboard with multiple layers. This 

led to possibilities such as softwood kraft pulp in a core or 

base layer for strength and hardwood pulp or even bleached 

Figure 23—Regional specialty packaging and 

industrial paper capacity in the United States 

(thousand short tons). 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

West 

South 

North 
23 

Figure 24—Location of specialty packaging and industrial paper capacity in the 

United States (thousand short tons). 

Spec. pkg. & ind. paper 

Process 

700 

300 

500 

150 

100 

50 

Capacity (1,000 tons/year)

1970

2000

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

" "

"

"

"

" "

" " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

" "

"

"

" "

"
24 

pulp in a surface layer for better print quality. With multi-ply 

sheet forming and other technological advances, linerboard 

mills using recycled fiber (generally from old corrugated 

containers) or higher proportions of hardwood fiber now 

commonly produce linerboard with performance characteristics comparable with those of linerboard produced with virgin 

softwood fiber. 

Figure 28 illustrates trends in U.S. linerboard capacity by 

region from 1970 to 2000 according to the FPL–UW database (including kraft linerboard, recycled linerboard, and all 

other unbleached kraft paperboard). The largest share of U.S. 

capacity and most capacity growth in recent decades has been 

concentrated in the South, because of the need for softwood 

fiber and the abundance of Southern Pine pulpwood. A sizable share of capacity has also been located in the West. 

Historically, only a small fraction of capacity was located in 

the North, based almost exclusively on recycled fiber. 

Figure 29 shows the evolution of U.S. linerboard capacity by 

process according to the FPL–UW database. Three general 

categories of production capacity were identified: [1] capacity based on 100% recycled fiber, [2] integrated kraft pulping 

using pre-1980s press technology, and [3] integrated kraft 

pulping using new press technology such as extended nip 

pressing. The new press technology made rapid and significant inroads in linerboard capacity from the early 1980s to 

the mid-1990s. Since the early 1990s, most of the expansion 

in linerboard capacity was based exclusively on recycled fiber, 

and capacity with integrated kraft pulping appears to have 

peaked in the late 1990s along with overall U.S. linerboard 

capacity. 

Figure 30 illustrates geographical shifts in linerboard capacity 

at U.S. mill locations between 1970 and 2000. The preponderance of large kraft paperboard mills in the U.S. South is 

readily apparent. The South has been home to the largest 

number of mills and largest share of total U.S. capacity for 

decades. A number of relatively large kraft paperboard mills 

have also existed in the West (in the Pacific Northwest). A 

notable increase in linerboard capacity occurred in the North, 

but linerboard mills in the North are based on recycled fiber, 

generally without any capacity from integrated kraft pulping. 

Also, although mill capacity has increased in general, linerboard mills in the North remain typically smaller in capacity 

on average than mills in the South and West. Figure 30 also 

illustrates that new press technology has been introduced 

incrementally at most large kraft paperboard mills that typically have more than one paper machine. In general, almost 

every linerboard mill in the South has been upgraded with 

new press technology, but not every machine at each mill 

has been updated. 

Corrugating Medium 

Corrugating medium is used almost entirely in the manufacture of corrugated boxes and corrugated containers. It is 

combined with linerboard to produce corrugated containerboard. Both linerboard and corrugating medium are produced 

in a range of basis weights, but a typical containerboard 

combination includes a middle layer of corrugating medium 

with a basis weight of 26 lb per thousand square feet 

(42.8 g/m3

) sandwiched between two layers of linerboard 

each with a basis weight of 42 lb (69.1 g/m3

). Because the 

corrugating medium in the containerboard is not flat but 

rather it is fluted (or corrugated), a material take-up factor 

results in the corrugating medium weighing roughly half of 

what the linerboard used in the typical containerboard 

weighs. Thus, corrugating medium capacity in the United 

States was about 11 million tons in the year 2000, or roughly 

half the capacity of linerboard produced for containerboard 

(deducting 5 million tons or so of linerboard and unbleached 

kraft board capacity that served export and folding boxboard 

markets). 

Unlike the linerboard industry, which has been concentrated 

mainly in the South and also the Northwest (based on softwood fiber), U.S. corrugating medium mill capacity has been 

distributed more evenly across all regions, with a large share 

of capacity in the North. Corrugating medium is distinguished 

from linerboard by product characteristics that have 

Figure 25—Regional capacity of (unbleached) kraft 

packaging paper in the United States (thousand short 

tons). 

Figure 26—Kraft packaging paper capacity by 

process in the United States (thousand short tons). 

0

500

1000

1500

2000 

2500 

3000 

3500 

4000 

4500 

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

West 

South 

North 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

100% unbleached 

100% recycled 
25 

Figure 27—Location of unbleached kraft paper capacity by process 

in the United States in 1970 and 2000. 

Integrated kraft pulp 

100% recycled 

Process 

400 

150 

250 

100 

50 

25 

Capacity (1,000 tons/year)

1970

2000

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"
26 

determined production process and fiber raw material inputs, 

as well as differences in regional distributions of production 

capacity. Whereas linerboard has been required to meet 

standards related primarily to tensile strength and box compression strength (mullen burst test and edgewise compression tests), corrugating medium is rated primarily according 

to the concora crush test (measuring its ability to keep the 

linerboard facings separated). Differences between linerboard 

and corrugating medium in sheet performance requirements 

permit corrugating medium to be made with semichemical 

pulp, using a large proportion of hardwood fiber, and also 

with recycled fiber. Thus, whereas U.S. linerboard capacity 

was based traditionally on unbleached kraft pulp using primarily softwood fiber, U.S. corrugating medium capacity has 

been based on variants of the semichemical pulping process 

using primarily hardwood fiber. Also, since the 1970s, most 

of the growth in U.S. corrugating medium capacity has been 

based on recycled fiber. 

Figure 31 illustrates trends in U.S. corrugating medium 

capacity by region from 1970 to 2000 according to the FPL–

UW database (including semichemical corrugating medium 

and recycled corrugating medium). Among U.S. regions, the 

North has had the largest share of total U.S. capacity and 

capacity growth. 

Figure 32 shows evolution of U.S. corrugating medium 

capacity by fiber input according to the FPL–UW database. 

Two general categories of production capacity were identified based on fiber furnish: [1] recycled fiber and 

[2] semichemical pulp. Most of the growth in U.S. corrugating medium capacity was based on recycled fiber, whereas 

capacity based on semichemical pulp has remained relatively 

constant in recent decades. In the FPL–UW database, the 

precise share of capacity based on recycled fiber was estimated for mills with semichemical pulping facilities. This 

approach differs from capacity data published by AF&PA 

(in which semichemical corrugating medium means corrugating medium containing not less than 75% virgin wood pulp 

and recycled corrugating medium means corrugating medium 

containing less than 75% virgin wood pulp). 

Figure 33 illustrates geographical shifts in corrugating medium capacity at U.S. mill locations between 1970 and 2000. 

The even distribution of mill locations in the eastern United 

States is readily apparent. In 1970, most mills used a higher 

proportion of semichemical pulp than recycled fiber. By 

2000, the situation was reversed, and very few mills were 

using exclusively virgin wood pulp. Capacity expansion has 

occurred at many mill locations across all regions, with the 

largest mills concentrated in the North Central and South 

Central regions. 

Solid Bleached Board 

Solid bleached paperboard is made primarily from bleached 

kraft pulp and used primarily for boxboard, milk carton, and 

food service applications (for example, paper cups, paper 

plates). To a much lesser extent, solid bleached board is used 

also for linerboard and other uses. Used heavily in food packaging and food service applications, solid bleached board 

produced in the United States generally contains little or no 

recycled fiber to avoid potential food contamination and to 

meet standards for food packaging materials. Virtually all 

U.S. mill capacity is integrated with bleached kraft pulp 

production. 

In the FPL–UW database, solid bleached board mill capacity 

estimates also include some of the capacity for bleached 

bristols, lightweight bleached board that is produced for book 

covers, greeting cards, index cards, and other printing or 

writing applications. Production technology for solid 

bleached packaging board and bleached bristols is quite 

similar, and capacity estimates are not differentiated by product type in many cases, although bristols are traditionally 

classified by the industry as printing and writing paper 

Figure 28—Regional capacity of linerboard (and 

unbleached kraft board) in the United States 

(thousand short tons). 

Figure 29—Linerboard (plus other unbleached kraft 

paperboard) capacity by process in the United States 

(thousand short tons). 

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

New press technology 

100% recycled 

Older press technology 

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

West 

South

North
27 

Figure 30—Location of linerboard capacity by process in the 

United States in 1970 and 2000. 

Older press technology 

New press technology 

100% recycled 

Process 

1,00

400 

600 

200 

100 

50 

Capacity (1,000 tons/year) 

1970

2000

"

"

" "

"

" "

"

""

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" " " "

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"
28 

products rather than paperboard. Thus, the total U.S. capacity for solid bleached board according to the FPL–UW database is somewhat higher than the actual solid bleached paperboard capacity data published by AF&PA (by about one 

million tons in the year 2000, representing the capacity of 

bleached bristols). 

Figure 34 illustrates trends in U.S. solid bleached board 

capacity by region from 1970 to 2000 according to the 

FPL–UW database (capacity estimates include solid bleached 

paperboard and some of the capacity for bleached bristols). 

Although solid bleached board is made typically from a mix 

of softwood and hardwood kraft pulp, capacity has always 

been located in the regions where softwoods are more abundant, the South and West. There is no capacity in the North. 

Most of the existing capacity and the bulk of the capacity 

growth in recent decades has been concentrated in the South. 

Figure 35 illustrates geographical shifts in solid bleached 

board capacity at U.S. mill locations between 1970 and 2000. 

The distribution of mill locations changed very little during 

that period with most of the same mills still operating in the 

year 2000 as in 1970, although there was a trend of capacity 

expansion at many mill locations. 

Other Recycled Paperboard 

In the FPL–UW database, other recycled paperboard includes 

all paperboard that is made exclusively from recycled fiber 

except for recycled linerboard and recycled corrugating 

medium. Other recycled paperboard is produced primarily for 

boxboard (used mostly in consumer packaging), gypsum liner 

(facings for gypsum wallboard), other special packaging and 

board applications, and converting applications such as tube, 

can, and drum stock. 

Figure 36 illustrates trends in other recycled paperboard 

capacity by region in the United States from 1970 to 2000, 

according to the FPL–UW database. The North has maintained the dominant share of total capacity among U.S. regions, but capacity has been gradually declining in the North. 

More capacity growth occurred in the South in recent decades than any other region. Overall U.S. capacity for other 

recycled paperboard (excluding linerboard and corrugating 

medium) has shown relatively little change with a gradual 

decline in recent decades according to the FPL–UW capacity 

database. By contrast, industry capacity data published by 

AF&PA indicate that other recycled paperboard capacity 

actually increased modestly (by somewhat more than a million tons) during the same period. 

Figure 37 illustrates geographical shifts in other recycled 

paperboard capacity at U.S. mill locations between 1970 and 

2000 according to the FPL–UW database. The distribution of 

mill locations for other recycled paperboard changed little 

during that period with many of the same mills still operating 

in the year 2000 as in 1970, although production capacity 

was expanded at many mill locations. Some mills were closed 

in the North between 1970 and 2000, while capacity generally 

expanded at other locations and other regions. However, 

there were still a relatively large number of mills and numerous relatively small mills operating in the North in the year 

2000. 

Market Pulp 

Market pulp is pulp produced at one location and sold to 

industrial users at another location or exported. Market pulp 

has always represented a minor share of total U.S. pulp capacity, generally less than 15% (most U.S. pulping capacity is 

directly integrated at the same location with paper or paperboard production). Roughly half of U.S. market pulp production is exported. Compared with pulp used for paper production at integrated pulping and papermaking facilities, market 

pulp generally undergoes additional processing steps to facilitate warehouse storage and transportation, including pulp 

drying and baling. The principal categories of market pulp 

produced in the United States include bleached paper-grade 

chemical pulp (chiefly kraft pulp), deinked (or recycled) 

Figure 31—Regional capacity of corrugating medium 

in the United States (thousand short tons). 

Figure 32—Corrugating medium capacity by fiber furnish 

in the United States (thousand short tons). 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Semichemical 

Recycled 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

West 

South 

North 
29 

Figure 33—Location of corrugating medium capacity by fiber furnish in the 

United States in 1970 and 2000. 

Semichemical 

Recycled 

Process 

800 

300 

500 

150 

75 

30 

Capacity (1,000 tons/year) 

1970

2000

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

" "

"

" "

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

" "

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"
30 

market pulp, dissolving pulp, and cotton linter pulp. A very 

small volume of mechanical pulp was produced as market 

pulp in the 1970s and 1980s, but capacity dropped to zero in 

the 1990s. 

Paper-grade chemical pulp produced in the United States is 

primarily bleached or semibleached kraft pulp, sold to papermakers for use in newsprint, printing and writing paper, tissue 

paper products, and also as ‘fluff pulp’ for use in applications 

such as wadding in diapers and other sanitary products. Mill 

capacity is differentiated into hardwood kraft and softwood 

kraft, based on fiber furnishes. A relatively small and declining share of paper-grade chemical pulp capacity is sulfite 

market pulp (sulfite capacity was less than 2% of chemical 

market pulp capacity in the year 2000, and it is included with 

kraft market pulp capacity in the FPL–UW database). Only a 

relatively small share of kraft market pulp is unbleached kraft 

pulp (less than 5%). 

Deinked or recycled market pulp is pulp that is produced 

from recycled fiber and usually marketed as a lower cost 

substitute for bleached hardwood kraft market pulp. There 

was a surge in U.S. deinked market pulp capacity in the 

1990s with a number of new mills built during that period. 

Expansion was stimulated in part by presidential executive 

orders that required U.S. government agencies to purchase 

office paper with specified recycled content standards. However, deinked market pulp capacity decreased somewhat in 

the late 1990s with limited growth in demand and weak 

prices. 

Dissolving and special alpha pulps are highly processed lowyield pulps that consist of mostly alpha cellulose (wood 

cellulose). Dissolving pulp has been used traditionally to 

make rayon, acetate, and other cellulose derivatives and also 

to make some specialty paper products. 

Figure 38 illustrates trends in total market pulp capacity by 

region in the United States from 1970 to 2000, according to 

the FPL–UW database. Most of the growth in U.S. market 

pulp capacity has occurred in the South, primarily based on 

expansion in kraft pulping capacity. Capacity in the North has 

fluctuated but increased modestly during the past decade. 

Capacity in the West receded significantly since the late 

1980s, with declining harvest of timber on public lands in the 

West and declining supply of pulpwood chips from sawmills 

and plywood mills in the region. 

Figure 39 shows trends in market pulp capacity by principal 

category according to the FPL–UW database, including 

hardwood and softwood kraft, recycled (deinked), mechanical (including bleached CTMP), dissolving, and cotton linter. 

Expansion in U.S. market pulp capacity in recent decades 

was concentrated in kraft pulp and deinked pulp. 

Figure 40 illustrates geographical shifts in market pulp capacity at U.S. mill locations between 1970 and 2000 according 

to the FPL–UW capacity database. Softwood kraft pulping 

capacity expanded at a number of mill locations in the South 

and West, but the number of mills in the West declined (leading to an overall decline in capacity in the West). Hardwood 

kraft pulping capacity expanded in both the South and North. 

A proliferation of deinked market pulp mills appeared in the 

North along with several mills in the South, each generally 

smaller in capacity than the typically larger kraft pulp mills. 

Shifts in Mill Size 

In general, the average size of pulp, paper, and paperboard 

mills increased from 1970 to 2000. In part, this shift is attributable to a decline in the number of operational mills from 

666 in 1970 to 530 in 2000 according to the FPL–UW database. During the same period, the total capacity of all paper, 

paperboard, and market pulp mills increased from 62.0 to 

114.4 million tons. Thus, the average capacity per mill more 

than doubled, increasing from around 93 thousand tons per 

year to around 216 thousand tons per year. 

Figure 41 shows that in 1970 there were 471 mills (out of a 

total of 666 mills) with capacity of less than 100 thousand 

tons per year. This was more than 71% of the total. By 2000, 

only 52% of mills had capacity less than 100 thousand tons 

per year (277 mills out of a total of 530). Also, in 1970, there 

were only 14 mills with capacity greater than 500 thousand 

tons per year. In 2000, this number had increased to 72 mills, 

more than five times the number in 1970. In general, many 

mills became significantly larger while many smaller mills 

were closed, so that in effect, larger mills were replacing 

smaller mills, and thus capacity expanded even though there 

was an absolute decline in the total number of mills. 

.

Figure 34—Regional capacity of solid bleached board 

in the United States (thousand short tons). 

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

West 

South
31 

Figure 35—Location of solid bleached board capacity in the 

United States in 1970 and 2000. 

Solid bleached board 

900 

400 

600 

200 

100 

50 

Capacity (1,000 tons/year) 

1970

2000

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"
32 

Shifts in Concentration 

by Firm and by State 

As indicated in Table 5, there was a shift toward concentration of production capacity among larger firms between 1970 

and 2000. In 1970, the top ten companies accounted for less 

than 35% of total paper, paperboard, and market pulp capacity. By 2000, the top ten companies accounted for nearly half 

the total capacity. The capacity of each of the top ten producers more than doubled from 1970 to 2000. The top two 

producers did not change rankings between 1970 and 2000, 

but the other eight rankings were either different companies 

or the same companies in a different order. 

Table 6 shows the total capacity of paper, paperboard, and 

market pulp among the highest-producing States in 1970 and 

2000. In general, the ranking of States in the West went 

down while the ranking of States in the East and South 

shifted upward. 

Summary 

On the whole, the production capacity of the U.S. pulp and 

paper industry expanded from 1970 to 2000, although the 

rate of growth gradually decelerated. Geographically, capacity growth shifted from the West to the East, and particularly 

to the South. Significant expansion occurred in production 

capacity based on recycled fiber, especially from the late 

1980s to the late 1990s. The rate of overall capacity expansion has slowed since the late 1990s, with corporate consolidation and numerous mill closures, but average mill capacity 

more than doubled between 1970 and 2000. 

From the standpoint of forestry and forest management, the 

fact that there is relatively little pulping and papermaking 

capacity in the Rocky Mountain and Great Plains regions is 

important. Pulpwood markets for small-diameter timber from 

National Forests in the interior West are limited. 

The FPL–UW database provides a resource for analysis of 

shifts in production capacity by process and region. One 

application is in the area of modeling capacity change as a 

function of economic determinants, as part of larger efforts to 

model long-run evolution of capacity and production technology in the pulp and paper sector. Because the FPL–UW 

database allows more detailed analysis of shifts in capacity by 

process category and region, it supplements published national data on industry capacity by product (AF&PA 2000). 

Analyzing shifts in capacity by process and region is important in forest sector modeling where it is recognized that 

fiber input requirements vary by process type (for example, 

requirements for virgin materials differ from those of recycled 

wood fiber) and also regional pulpwood market trends 

are determined by regional pulp, paper, and paperboard 

capacity trends. 

References 

AF&PA. 2000. 41st annual survey of paper, paperboard and 

pulp capacity. Washington, DC: American Forest & Paper 

Association. 31 p. (and earlier editions) 

Kurttila, M. 2001. The spatial structure of forests in the 

optimization calculation of forest planning—A landscape 

ecological perspective. Forest Ecology and Management. 

142: 129–142. 

Loehle, C. 2000. Optimal control of spatially distributed 

process models. Ecological Modelling. 131: 79–95. 

Miller–Freeman, Inc. 1999. Pulp & paper North American 

factbook (1999–2000). San Francisco, CA: Miller–Freeman, 

Inc. 573 p. 

Naesset, E. 1997. Geographical information systems in longterm forest management and planning with special reference 

to preservation of biological diversity: a review. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 93: 121–136. 

Paperloop Publications. 2000. 2001 Lockwood–Post’s 

directory of the pulp, paper and allied trades. San Francisco, 

CA: Paperloop Publications (now Paperloop.com). 793 p. 

(plus appendixes). (and earlier editions) 

Figure 36—Regional capacity of other recycled paperboard in the United States (thousand short tons). 

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

North South West 
33 

Figure 37—Location of other recycled board capacity by process in the 

United States in 1970 and 2000. 

Other recycled paperboard 200 

300 

150 

75 

50 

Capacity (1,000 tons/year) 

1970

2000

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" " "

" "

"

" "

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

" "

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" " "

"

" "

"

" "

"

"

" "

"

" "

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"" " ""

"""

"

"

"

"

" ""

"

"

"

" "

"

"

" " "

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" """

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

" ""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

" "

"

" " "

"

"

" """

"" "

"

"

" "

" "

"

"

"

"

" "

""

"
34 

Figure 38—Regional market pulp capacity in the 

United States (thousand short tons). 

Figure 39—Market pulp capacity by category in the 

United States (thousand short tons) (capacity of 

mechanical pulp was insignificant). 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 

West 

South 

North 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Deinked pulp 

Mechanical pulp 

Hardwood kraft 

Cotton 

Softwood kraft 

Dissolving pulp 
35 

Figure 40—Location of market pulp capacity by category in the 

United States in 1970 and 2000. 

Softwood kraft 

Hardwood kraft 

Deinked market pulp 

Dissolving pulp 

Process 

1,40

500 

1,00

300 

150 

50 

Capacity (1,000 tons/year) 

1970

2000

Cotton 

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "
36 

Figure 41—Number of U.S. paper, paperboard, and 

market pulp mills by capacity (thousand short tons) 

in 1970 and 2000. 

Table 5—Top ten U.S. firms in total paper, paperboard, and market pulp capacity, 1970 and 2000 

 1970 2000 

Annual capacity Annual capacity 

(thousand short tons) (%)a (thousand short tons) (%)a 

International Paper Co. 4,372 7.06 International Paper 11,920 10.42

Georgia–Pacific Corp. 2,741 4.43 Georgia–Pacific Corp. 7,571 6.62

Crown Paper Corp. 2,665 4.31 Smurfit–Stone Container Corp. 7,425 6.49

St Regis Paper Co. 2,193 3.54 Weyerhaeuser Co. 5,514 4.82

Weyerhaeuser Co. 2,072 3.35 Abitibi–Consolidated Inc. 4,730 4.14

Kimberly–Clark Corp. 1,716 2.77 Mead Corp. 3,685 3.22

Union Camp Corp. 1,440 2.33 Temp–Inland Inc. 3,525 3.08

Great Northern Paper Inc. 1,405 2.27 Westvaco Corp. 3,285 2.87

Scott Paper Co. 1,333 2.15 Willamette Industries Inc. 3,239 2.83

Container Corp. of America 1,278 2.07 Fort James Corp. 3,195 2.79

a

Percentage of total United States capacity. 

Table 6—Total capacity of paper, paperboard, and 

market pulp in highest-producing States

1970 2000 

Rank State 

Capacity

(thousand 

short tons) State 

Capacity 

(thousand

short tons) 

1 Georgia 4,727 Georgia 10,415 

2 Washington 4,159 Alabama 9536 

3 Alabama 3,842 Louisiana 7,437 

4 Louisiana 3,602 Washington 7,265 

5 Wisconsin 3,472 Wisconsin 7,129 

6 Florida 3,139 Michigan 5,212 

7 Maine 3,085 South Carolina 4,911 

8 Oregon 2857 Maine 4,796 

9 Michigan 2,609 Oregon 4,657 

10 Pennsylvania 2,498 Virginia 4,638 

383

95

42 29 15 14

244

79

48

24 30

72

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0-100 100-200 200-300 300-400 400-500 >500

1970

2000

Capacity range