Day 063 - 07 Dec 94 - Page 36


     
     1        A.  That is a paperboard container.
     2
     3   Q.   Has Perseco in Europe done any calculations to see whether
     4        the paperboard container which is used by the Germans and
     5        the Austrians (and I think there may be somebody else but
     6        I cannot remember) is more or less energy expensive than
     7        the polystyrene foam clam shell?
     8        A.  Yes, we have.
     9
    10   Q.   What was your conclusion?
    11        A.  That the paperboard container on the energy impact is
    12        actually more energy expensive than the foam container.
    13
    14   Q.   What about atmospheric emissions and waterborne wastes?
    15        A.  Waterborne wastes, there is a balance.  If you look at
    16         -- we have looked at two different types of waterborne
    17        waste, one being soluble salt where the foam clam shell was
    18        worse, and one being COD, which is chemical oxygen amount
    19        on the water used, which was actually worse for the
    20        paperboards container.
    21
    22        On airborne emissions, again it was more or less a balanced
    23        picture.  The foam clam shell has a negative in its use of
    24        hydrocarbons for blowing.  However, the top colour clam
    25        shell has a more negative impact in, for instance, its
    26        production of acid gases which contribute to acid rain.
    27
    28   Q.   This is when it is being incinerated, is it?
    29        A.  No, this is when it is being made.
    30
    31   Q.   In the production?
    32        A.  In the production.
    33
    34   Q.   One thing and then finally one little other:  Mr. Van Erp,
    35        can you find your CVE 4 exhibit which is the material from
    36        Enso-Gutzeit in Finland?  Just the first page, the letter
    37        Ms. Steel was asking you about?
    38        A.  Yes, I have it here.
    39
    40   Q.   I want you to look at the last big paragraph which has the
    41        figure of 33 hectares for 1000 tonnes of paperboard.  Do
    42        you have that?
    43        A.  Yes.
    44
    45   Q.   I think you said that this is what you need to cut down to
    46        produce some 1,000 tonnes of paperboard; that area of trees
    47        would need to be cut down to produce 1,000 tonnes, is that
    48        right?
    49        A.  Yes.
    50 
    51   Q.   Can I ask you this, and perhaps I might be forgiven for 
    52        leading but it is very important we all understand what is 
    53        proposed both by yours figures and by Mr. Kouchoukos who
    54        did the same exercise.  If you wanted 1000 ----
    55
    56   MR. MORRIS:  Can I just interject, that this is a very sensitive
    57        area of the case and I would hope there would not be any
    58        leading questions.
    59
    60   MR. RAMPTON:  No, no.  I just want to make sure we have all

Prev Next Index