Day 010 - 11 Jul 94 - Page 23

     
     1
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Two paragraphs lower down, "they (something)
     2        changed the name".
 
     3   MR. MORRIS:  "Somewhere along the way, some group hit on a
              nifty solution.  They simply changed the name of one CFC.
     4        Instead of continuing to call it CFC-22, as they had for
              half a century, they renamed it 'HCFC-22'.  Voila!   They
     5        had their cake and ate it too".
 
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Are you saying that is right, are you?
              A.  I am saying -- well, just to further clarify the
     7        point, if you refer to the third column and you note that
              in the fourth paragraph from the bottom a quote attributed
     8        to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, a
              letter dated January 27th 1988.
     9
         MR. MORRIS:  "In a letter dated January 27th 1988 and addressed
    10        to the plastic-foam industry's Washington based trade
              group, the EPA Office of Air and Radiation sought to
         'clarify' the move to CFC-22: 'Chemicals such as HCFC-22
              contain hydrogen .... Thus HCFC-22 is not technically a
    12        CFC'."
 
    13   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Where are you now?
              A.  Fourth paragraph from the bottom on the third column.
    14
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Where is it in relation to the "Somewhere
    15        along ... the nifty solution" paragraph?
              A.  Slightly lower and to the right.
    16
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I have found it. "In a letter dated 27th
    17        January"; is that the one?
 
    18   MR. MORRIS:  That is the one.  So previous to that is it
              correct to say that the EPA had considered that HCFC or
    19        CFC-22, as it was and became HCFC-22, had been restricted
              or banned under the previous legislation.  What were they
    20        doing by making that statement, were they making a
              concession for the use of CFC-22, as far as you
         understand?
              A.  My understanding of the matter is that the packaging,
    22        the plastic packaging trade groups were looking for a
              means to substitute alternative blowing agents in lieu of
    23        CFCs, because it was becoming increasingly apparent by
              actions like the group, Vermonters Organise for Clean Up,
    24        and the growing literature that was circulated regarding
              the coming campaign, that it was necessary to recognise or
    25        in some way shift attention away from the blowing agent
              CFC-22 because of its presumed qualities, in that it 
    26        damaged the ozone layer. 
  
    27        So in a piece of what Barry Commaner(?), who is a US
              academic in the United States, refers to as the -- he
    28        refers to it as "linguistic detoxification".  This
              substance which had been known as one thing for 50 years
    29        now became another thing.
 
    30   Q.   When it was suitable for the industry?
              A.  That is correct.