Day 011 - 12 Jul 94 - Page 68
1 ozone layer?
A. The people who wrote the documents, which I do not
2 think is the same as general scientific opinion, gave it
as their estimate that at that time it was five per cent.
3
Q. That was what was generally believed at the time?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. So bearing that in mind, would it be accurate to describe
a product blown with HCFCs as ozone friendly at that time?
6 A. Not completely ozone friendly, no.
7 MISS STEEL: Thank you.
8 MR. MORRIS: Just going back very briefly to the name change
from CFC-22 to HCFC-22, would anybody involved in the
9 plastics industry or packaging industry have been aware of
that change?
10 A. As I do not work in the packaging industry I am not in
a position to comment.
11
Q. OK. I am conscious of the time. I am trying to move
12 fairly fast through things; I am suffering maybe a bit for
it, but -- just going back to the figures issue on usage
13 of HCFCs and CFCs, in your statement you refer to
McDonald's usage in 1988 and 1991, do you remember that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. If you just go to your statement briefly?
A. Yes.
16
Q. On the third paragraph of page 6?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. The figure O.272 kilo tonnes in 1988, yes?
A. Yes.
19
Q. Applies to the HCFC use in McDonald's packaging, yes?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Were you given figures about the CFC usage in their
packaging at the same time?
22 A. The figures I had were at that time the CFC use, the
strict CFC use in the sense of 11 and 12 were zero.
23
Q. That was not the case. We know that CFC use at least ----
24 A. Hold on a minute.
25 Q. 1988 we are talking about.
A. In 1988, yes, there were some CFCs being used; by the
26 early 1990's the strict CFCs had been phased out.
27 Q. Does the figure of O.272 include the CFC usage as well as
HCFC usage?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. It does?
A. Yes. The point of those figures was actually that even
30 if one was a mixture of CFCs and HCFCs and the second was
HCFCs only, the actual percentage of chemicals had
