Day 059 - 01 Dec 94 - Page 35
1 A. Yes, that is correct.
2
3 Q. -- go on using Isopentane?
4 A. Until 1986.
5
6 Q. Then they started using what?
7 A. They started using CFCs.
8
9 Q. Why?
10 A. Because (a) there was no evidence at that time of any
11 destruction of the ozone layer by CFCs, and (b) the product
12 is commercially better to use from a cost point of view and
13 is certainly less flammable in production in the factory.
14
15 Q. So it is safer for the people who are using it; is that
16 right?
17 A. It is said to be, yes.
18
19 Q. What is used now to blow the foam for McDonald's packaging?
20 A. Isopentane which was the original blowing agent and is
21 a hydrocarbon.
22
23 Q. Why did McDonald's suppliers stop using CFCs?
24 A. After the announcement that CFCs were destroying the
25 ozone layer, many meetings and discussions took place,
26 including the Montreal Protocol. I personally thought it
27 prudent that we should get out of the use of CFCs as a
28 blowing agent in our foam packaging. I persuaded the UK
29 senior management that this would be right for McDonald's,
30 and I am not sure anybody directly believed it was a real
31 problem at that time, but they authorised me to go ahead
32 and make the change.
33
34 I approached Lin Pac and told them I would like them to go
35 back to using Isopentane as a blowing agent, and they were
36 totally horrified because they said it would cost them a
37 lot of money to make the change back, and CFCs were much
38 easier to use in the factory than Pentane from a
39 flammability point of view. Therefore, they were very
40 reluctant to make this change.
41
42 After a number of trials in our restaurants when packaging
43 produced from Pentane did not perform particularly well, we
44 finally got it right, the packaging was as good as the
45 packaging produced with CFCs, and ultimately we switched
46 our whole market in July 1988 back to foam packaging blown
47 with Isopentane instead of CFCs.
48
49 Q. So it cost them something to go back from CFCs to
50 hydrocarbons?
51 A. Yes, it did.
52
53 Q. Had it cost them anything to change from hydrocarbons to
54 CFCs in the first place?
55 A. Yes, I believe the cost was similar both ways. If
56 I remember rightly, in the region of 80, £90,000 to make
57 each of those changes.
58
59 Q. Lastly, before I ask you to look at some documents,
60 Mr. Oakley, can you can you remember the year in which CFCs
