Day 007 - 06 Jul 94 - Page 45


     
     1
         Q.   "EPA identified ethylene and benzine, the chemical
     2        precursors to polystyrene as the fourth and sixth highest
              waste production processes respectively".  Leaving aside
     3        what the EPA may or may not have identified.  Is it
              correct that ethylene and benzine are, strictly speaking,
     4        chemical precursors to polystyrene?
              A.  They would be, yes.
     5
         Q.   In the next paragraph "Until 1987 polystyrene foam
     6        manufacturers in the US used a variety of chloroflaur
              carbons".  Is that the correct spelling?
     7        A.  No, I believe the correct spelling of fluro would be F
              L U O R O - fluorocarbons.  Florine is not spelt that way.
     8
         Q.   "Chemicals which had been shown to damage the ozone layer
     9        and ... The polystyrene ...  In 1987 major foam producers
              with foam package users announced they would change their
    10        processes to use different non-CFC gases and to produce
              foam food packages."  Is that correct so far as it  goes,
    11        Mr. Kouchoukos?
              A.  It sounds like that could be correct.
    12
         Q.   I want to ask you about the next paragraph, "However
    13        research indicates that one of chemical alternatives to
              CFC called pentane is explosive and difficult to contain
    14        in the manufacturing process, causing dangerous working
              conditions".  Is that a fair description or not?
    15        A.  I think it is somewhat of an exaggeration in my
              opinion. 'Explosive'- I do not know if I would call it
    16        explosive.   I would call it flammable.  Difficult to
              contain?  No.  There are industrial processes well in
    17        place to contain any emission, and it does not cause
              dangerous working conditions because the regulation, or
    18        the equipment to contain it, is put in place.
 
    19   Q.   Then goes on Mr. Lipsett, "The other alternative gas,
              hydrochlorofluoro carbons ...  Was identified as a CFC gas
    20        by EPA until manufacturers convinced EPA to remove it from
              the list of ozone depleting CFC gases in 1987".   Mr.
    21        Kouchoukos, were you in regular contact with manufacturers
              at this time?
    22        A.  We began the process around that time.
 
    23   Q.   Were you conscious that manufacturers dissuaded the EPA
              from keeping HCFCs on a list of ozone depleting gases in
    24        1987?
              A.  I would be aware of no such thing.
    25
         Q.   Do you know of any researches:   "Further research 
    26        indicated the HCFC gases were more damaging to the ozone 
              layer."  You have told us about that.  "Industry 
    27        scientists have claimed ----" Were you aware of any
              industry scientists claiming that it was less damaging
    28        than they knew it was?
              A.  I am aware of no industry scientist making that claim.
    29        Further, the scientists that we relied upon to give us
              information upon which chlorofluorocarbons were damaging,
    30        more damaging, or less damaging were from the United
              Nations Environmental Programme and from British

Prev Next Index