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
