Day 010 - 11 Jul 94 - Page 24
1
Q. Just to finish off on this name change on this particular
2 document, if you look at the top right?
3 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You are actually saying that there was a
substance which was called CFC-22 and that, in fact, was
4 the same as HCFC-22?
A. That would be my statement, yes.
5
MR. MORRIS: If I just read out to the court and you can make
6 any comments you wish to: If we look at the bottom
paragraph in the middle section, I will just read those
7 couple of paragraphs: "Consumption CFC-22 - oops HCFC-22
- increased at an average of 4 per cent a year even
8 before it was utilized as a substitute for - 11" - that is
presumably the CFC level - "or CFC-12 because of its
9 hydrogen atom, it is not regulated by the EPA or listed in
the Montreal Protocol roster of chemicals to be controlled
10 Consequently, as rate of use is bound to accelerate and
with it the total amount of ozone which 22 destroys.
11
That effect is not disputed. 'CFC-22 and HCFC-22 are the
12 same chemical and that chemical is capable of destroying
ozone in the stratosphere' says Michael Oppenheimer, a
13 senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund".
14 Next paragraph: "Even the leading manufacturer Dupont
agrees, says spokeswoman Kathy Forte, '22 HCFC and 22 CFC
15 are the same'. The term 'HCFC' was not used publicly
until Jan. 5 1988, she says, and the name change was
16 necessitated to 'avoid confusion' because of CFC-22's
hydrogen atom".
17
On the quote from Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental
18 Defense Fund. Are you aware of this organisation, the
Environmental Defense Fund?
19 A. Yes, I am.
20 Q. Have you worked with them? Has the Citizens Clearing
House for Hazardous Waste worked with them at any stage?
21 A. Well, to take a step back, you will note that the
statement of McDonald's representative is dated in August
22 1987 and, at that time, the Environmental Defense Fund,
along with other organisations, environmental
23 organisations, Natural Resources Defence Council and a
couple of other organisations, joined in a press
24 conference with the manufacturers and the trade group, the
plastic packaging trade groups, to announce this new
25 change, this shift to an alternative blowing agent.
26 At that time, we criticised the Environmental Defense Fund
for joining with the food packaging industry on the CFC
27 issue, because we recognised -- we did not know at the
time that HCFC-22 was the same thing as CFC-22, but what
28 we did know is that the blowing agents still caused harm
to the environment. It was acknowledged to be less
29 harmful to the environment than the other types of CFC,
but that the alternatives were not acceptable.
30
The real issue was the use of the foam package itself and
