From: january@eskimo.celestial.com (Jamie Pehling)
Subject: Aspects of Du Pont Position re CFC Phaseout
Keywords: ozone destruction CFC Du Pont Greenpeace
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:33:40 GMT


    Greenpeace ran a full-page advertisement on page A11  of 
the  New  York  Times for Monday 5  October  1992.   The  ad 
focuses  on the dangers of stratospheric ozone depletion  by 
action      of      chlorofluorocarbons      (CFCs)      and 
hydrochlorofluorocarbons  (HCFCs) and on the refusal  of  Du 
Pont  Corporation  to  support  an  immediate  phaseout   of 
production  of these chemicals.  Greenpeace alleges that  Du 
Pont's refusal is motivated by profit alone. 

    In  response to the ad I called Du Pont this morning  at 
1-800-441-7515.  The first person to whom I spoke offered to 
either  read  or  mail  me  a  statement  of  the  company's 
position.   I requested that the statement be read.  When  I 
began  asking  specific questions concerning  items  in  the 
statement,  I was transferred to Sharon Gidumal, a  Du  Pont 
environmental specialist in the area of CFCs.  What  follows 
is  a summary of the data which Ms. Gidumal  related  during 
our conversation.

    Ms. Gidumal stated that the Montreal Protocol is due  to 
be  renegotiated in Copenhagen in the near future.  The  new 
phaseout  deadline  will  mandate a  complete  cessation  in 
production  of CFCs by 1995.  (She said that President  Bush 
recently  expressed support for modifications of  the  Clean 
Air   Act  that  would  match  the  new  Montreal   Protocol 
timetable.)  Du Pont supports this timetable.

    Throughout  our discussion, Ms. Gidumal emphasized  that 
"Du  Pont  would be more than happy to stop  CFC  production 
right  now." CFCs have become undesirable for Du  Pont  both 
because    of    decreased   production    (and    therefore 
profitability) in recent years and the public relations cost 
resulting  from the environmental stigma. She said  that  Du 
Pont  is  concerned, however, with the  potentially  chaotic 
effect a precipitous phaseout would have on industries  that 
currently use CFCs. According to Ms. Gidumal, USA  equipment 
that  depends  on  CFCs  is  valued  at  $135  billion;  the 
retrofitting  cost would be immense.  An immediate  phaseout 
might  potentially  disrupt  hospitals,  supermarkets,   and 
especially  the  food  transport  industry,  75%  of   which 
allegedly uses CFCs for refrigeration.  (I have no objective 
data concerning usage of CFCs by USA industry.)  In light of 
these factors, Du Pont resists immediate phaseout.

    When  asked, Ms. Gidumal expressed  uncertainty  whether 
there would be substantial differences between the  negative 
effects on industry of immediate and longer-term  phaseouts.  
She  reiterated  Du Pont's general concern that  an  end  to 
production of CFCs could cause havoc, now and in the future. 
She  noted  that  recycling  of CFCs  offers  some  hope  of 
"filling  the gap" caused by decreased production, but  that 
no  reclamation effort recovers 100% of the input CFCs.   Du 
Pont, she said, has had a program of buying back,  cleaning, 
and reselling CFCs for 3 years.  According to her it is  not 
very  profitable,  and  is carried on  because  the  company 
believes it is the "right thing to do."

    I  asked what percentage of cooling systems in  the  USA 
depended  on CFCs, but Ms. Gidumal said that Du Pont had  no 
data  on  end usage, owing to the fact that  much  of  their 
trade  is  with resellers who provide Du Pont  products  and 
machinery to their own clients.

    Concerning   the   HCFCs  Du  Pont   is   marketing   as 
alternatives,  and which Greenpeace claims also destroy  the 
ozone  layer  "albeit  somewhat less" (than  do  CFCs),  Ms. 
Gidumal  said  that  Du Pont offers  several  HCFC  products 
tailored   to  specific  applications,  and  consisting   of 
mixtures  of HCFCs, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and  propane.  
According  to  her, the ozone destroying  potential  of  the 
three HCFC products she noted ranges from 2 to 5% of that of 
Du  Pont products CFC-11 and CFC-12.  I did not ask  her  to 
define "ozone destroying potential."

    I  felt that the most telling moment of  our  discussion 
occurred when I specifically asked how profitable Du  Pont's 
CFC  production currently is.  Ms. Gidumal said she did  not 
know  exact  figures, but that the company  is  making  some 
profit, or else it would not be producing the chemicals.   I 
noted that this belies the notion that larger concerns about 
the  CFC-dependence of the USA economy are uppermost  in  Du 
Pont's corporate mind, and she did not deny this.

    One  other factor that calls into question any  supposed 
dislocation that might occur upon total phaseout of CFCs  is 
mentioned in the Greenpeace advertisement.  CFCs were  first 
suspected  as destroyers of ozone in 1974, nearly  20  years 
ago.  In 1978, CFCs were banned in aerosol sprays, which  to 
me indicates a substantial credibility for their linkage  to 
destruction  of stratospheric ozone, and for the  danger  in 
this  phenomenon.   Why,  after  so  much  time,  would  USA 
industries  be so dependent on these chemicals?  I  did  not 
take this question up with Ms. Gidumal, as it only  occurred 
to me later.
-- 
Xref: sparky talk.environment:4026 sci.environment:11696 alt.activism:17037