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

Prev Next Index