Day 011 - 12 Jul 94 - Page 60
1 correct, as part of that family before it was renamed
HCFC-22?
2 A. Only assuming that it was at that time being used for
a significant amount of plastics blowing.
3
Q. Right, OK. "Among those affected by growing concern about
4 possible adverse CFC impacts on the atmosphere are
processors of extruded polystyrene foam and rigid and
5 flexible polyurethane foams, wherein CFCs serve as blowing
agents. This use accounts for 30% of US CFC consumption.
6 'Failure to resolve CFC issues could derail the current
rosy prospects for PUR', said John McKirdy, general
7 manager of Dow Chemical USA's PUR division, at a Society
of the Plastics Industry press conference, held 22 April.
8
He warned that future growth prospects would be realised"
9 -- growth prospects -- "only if the PUR industry seizes
the initiative in the CFC controversy. He restated
10 plastic industry support for a global cap on CFC
production at close to current levels." Presumably, that
11 means rather than phase out, it would be not produced --
does that mean not produced any more or keep the levels
12 constant rather than increase the levels?
A. There are two things. First of all, PUR in fact means
13 polyurere. It does not actually refer to the polystyrene
which you are talking about. Secondly, yes, it does means
14 that at that time with the best evidence that they had
they were suggesting a cap which is very similar to what
15 the Montreal Protocol first suggested.
16 Q. "He called for strong research efforts to develop
substitutes and programs to conserve, recapture, and
17 recycle CFC. On 30th April" ----- I note that 30th April
-- this is 1987 -- "Delegates attending a United Nations
18 sponsored conference in Geneva" -- are you aware of that
conference at all?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. "... Unanimously approved a protocol committing their
governments to a freeze on CFC production at 1986 levels,
21 effective 1990. A 20% reduction is set to follow in 1992,
with a further 30% reduction to be deliberated later.
22
The global sweep of this move brought partial relief to
23 CFC suppliers and users in the US. They had urged the
nation to avoid a repeat of the 1978 ban on CFC use in
24 aerosols, insisting unilateral action had hurt US
industries and killed US jobs, but did little to reduce
25 worldwide CFC emission levels. The protocol is also
expected to stimulate efforts already underway to develop
26 cost-effective CFC substitutes."
27 The question I want to ask, we do note that 30th April
unanimous vote at a United Nations sponsored conference
28 was before McDonald's announced their phase out of CFCs,
is that correct, so far as you know?
29 A. Yes.
30 Q. I think they announced it in August?
A. It might be the delegates who actually attended the
