TL: WHOSE CHLORINE SO: GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL (GP) DT: 1996 INDEX 1.SUMMARY 2. INTRODUCTION: WHO OWNS THE OZONE HOLE ? 3. METHODOLOGY 4. PRODUCTION TABLES 5. INVENTORY OF PRODUCTION PLANTS 6. GLOSSARY 7. SOURCES Information Synthesis by Jim Vallette Jim Vallette is director of the International Trade Information Service, a non-governmental organization based in Washington D.C. For more information, contact the ITIS at: itis@igc.apc.org SUMMARY Chemical companies have dictated the progress of the Montreal Protocol and measures to protect the ozone layer. In doing so, they have been able to switch from making money from CFCs to making money from CFC replacements. For these companies, the ozone hole has been a gold mine. The ozone crisis has meant a change to new products selling at premium prices. It has meant investments in new plants and revitalised marketing activity. It has injected commercial life into a "mature" low profit bulk chemicals market. The change, as long as it was slow enough, was good for business. In this report, we set out which corporations have profited from ozone destruction since the ozone hole was discovered and which nations own the ozone hole. This is a period over which everyone involved has taken an extraordinary gamble with a natural system essential for life on earth. If each atom of ozone destroying chlorine and bromine was marked with the logo of the company that profited from its production, more than half the sky would be covered with the logos of DuPont, Elf-Atochem, ICI, Great Lakes Chemical, Dead Sea Bromide, Daikin and Solvay. In our view, it is time the chemical companies are made to pay a share of the cost of repairing ozone damage. More resources are needed to enable the most rapid possible phase out of ozone depleting chemicals. The right places to look for new money are the nations and corporations that have profited from producing ozone depleting gases over the last ten years. This report is filled with new data which must inform the international debate over causes and solutions to ozone depletion. Among thousands of estimates the reader will find: * The total value of sales of ozone depleting substances since 1986 has exceeded $US 30.6 billion. * Ozone depleting substances equivalent to 10.6 million metric tons of CFC-11 have been produced since the ozone hole was discovered. * The USA has been responsible for 30% of the total production and DuPont for 14%. There are five key issues to be resolved at the Vienna meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in December 1995. In each case, debates about money threaten real progress. These issues are: 1.Phase out schedule for CFCs in developing countries. 2.Potential non-compliance of the Russian Federation and "economies in transition." 3.Phase out of HCFCs in industrialised countries. 4.Phase out of methyl bromide in industrialised countries. 5.Controls on HCFCs and methyl bromide in developing countries. For each of these issues, global commitments have been watered down by implicit judgements about the costs of taking action. But how are these judgements being made? Certainly not by evaluating the benefits of reducing risks of catastrophic ozone loss. This casual acceptance that current, or even reduced, levels of expenditure and commitments are somehow appropriate represents profound complacency. Governments and corporations are setting a price on the ozone layer. Our sky and our health are for sale -- cheap. INTRODUCTION: WHO OWNS THE OZONE HOLE? In 1931, DuPont opened the first CFC factory in Deepwater, New Jersey. Since then over 20 million tonnes of CFCs have been released to the atmosphere. The business of producing and selling chlorofluorocarbons attracted the world's largest chemical companies and enriched their shareholders and directors. Since 1974, it has been understood that the ozone layer has been under assault from CFCs and other ozone depleting substances (ODS) released into the atmosphere. However, over twenty years later, the accumulation of these chemicals in the stratosphere has reached the highest levels ever and continues to rise. But having identified the problem, several questions arise. If action needs to be taken to protect the ozone layer, who should take it? If there are costs to bear, who should pay? Where do the obligations of industrialised countries end, and the responsibilities of developing countries begin? If chemical companies have made money from CFCs, should they take some of the costs? These questions are rarely asked at meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, and never honestly answered. Greenpeace believes that those responsible for damaging the ozone layer should be held responsible for fixing it. This means that if there are costs to bear, then those who damaged the ozone layer must pay. COMMERCIAL CONFIDENTIALITY Corporate data on the production of ozone depleting substances remains incomplete and secretive. Many companies claimed commercial confidentiality when asked for their historical CFC production. Given that CFC production has almost stopped in some of these companies, the refusal to disclose data on commercial grounds is an outrageous denial of the public's right to know what damage corporations do to the environment. The real fear of those companies that refuse to disclose data is not of commercial rivals, but of being held publicly accountable for their share of the damage to the ozone layer. ESTIMATING RESPONSIBILITY Consultants working for Greenpeace have estimated the production of ozone depleting substances by nations and by corporations between the years 1986 and 1995. This ten year period follows the shocking discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica in 1985. The ozone hole provided clear evidence that dramatic precautionary action was both justified and urgent. However, over this period, over 17 million tonnes of a mixture of ozone destroying gases have been produced - and production continues. These gases have either reached the stratosphere already or will reach it in the coming decades. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CORPORATIONS Figure 1 shows the share of ozone depleting substances from 1986-95 produced by over 40 identified companies. If these corporations are held accountable for the ozone hole, their territorial share of the area of peak depletion in the ozone hole (enclosed by the 220 Dobson Unit contour) is shown in the table. This table also shows the estimated sales value (in thousands of U.S. dollars) of ODS made by each company over the 10 years since the ozone hole was discovered. The global chemical industry has made estimated sales valued at over US $3,000,000,000 per year. FIGURE 1: CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY RANK COMPANY SHARE SIZE SALES VALUE OF HOLE (SQ KM) ($US ,000) 1 Du Pont 13.71% 3,154,020 $5,268,500 2 Elf-Atochem 11.90% 2,737,000 $4,155,862 3 ICI 8.98% 2,065,347 $2,181,650 4 Great Lakes l6.94% 1,595,392 $237,600 Chemica 5 Dead Sea 6.45% 1,484,426 $230,000 Bromide 6 Solvay 5.18% 1,191,400 $1,579,250 7 Allied-Signal 4.64% 1,067,928 $2,406,000 8 Hoechst 3.06% 704,763 $1,127,000 9 Ausimont 2.77% 637,002 $1,243,750 10 Daikin 2.75% 631,929 $941,500 11 Asahi Glass 2.58% 592,297 $995,500 12 Ethyl 2.24% 516,322 $80,000 13 Dow Chemical 1.62% 372,983 $1,461,000 14 Laroche 1.47% 339,159 $700,000 Industries 15 Akzo Chemie 1.39% 320,077 $430,000 16 Rhone Poulenc 1.14% 262,292 $447,500 17 Central Glass 1.04% 240,182 $390,750 18 Mitsui 0.84% 193,741 $386,000 19 Teijin Kasei 0.76% 174,259 $27,000 20 Hankook Shin 0.73% 167,025 $208,299 Itwa 21 Nippon Halon 0.70% 161,351 $19,500 22 VEB Chemiewerk 0.69% 157,822 $222,500 23 Vulcan 0.58% 134,412 $526,500 24 Sankou Kagaku 0.57% 131,662 $20,400 25 SICNG 0.49% 113,075 $182,500 26 Showa Denko 0.43% 99,883 $218,000 27 Formosa 0.42% 97,692 $190,000 Plastics 28 PPG Industries 0.36% 83,481 $327,000 29 Nihon Kayaku 0.33% 75,512 $11,700 30 Asahi Kasei 0.32% 74,099 $290,250 31 Nippou Kagaku 0.31% 72,285 $11,200 32 Doukai Kagaku 0.28% 65,186 $10,100 33 Toagosei 0.26% 60,121 $235,500 34 Monsanto 0.24% 55,083 $74,000 35 Pacific 0.22% 51,503 $89,112 Chemicals 36 Produven 0.16% 35,755 $63,750 37 Asahi Penn 0.13% 30,061 $117,750 38 Spolchemie 0.13% 29,775 $40,000 39 Polifin 0.12% 28,667 $43,750 40 Tosoh Corp. 0.12% 27,763 $108,750 41 Kanto Denka 0.11% 25,465 $99,750 42 Ichikawa 0.03% 7,745 $1,200 Gousei Others 12.75% 2,932,222 $3,281,637 Total 100.00% 23,000,000 $30,682,010 Others includes all production in Russia, China, India, Romania, and Ukraine, and methyl chloroform production in France. Based upon estimated production of ODS, 1986 to 1995; 20-Year time- weighted ODP; and, estimated sales value of chemicals produced. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF NATIONS All nations have some responsibility for ozone depletion, but some have much greater responsibility than others. If each atom of ozone destroying chlorine or bromine in the stratosphere was marked with a national flag - over half the sky would be dominated by the Stars and Stripes, the Red Sun and the Union Jack. The United States alone is responsible for over seven million square kilometres of the Antarctic ozone hole - an area more than two thirds the size of the United States itself. Figure 2 shows each country's production of ozone depleting chemicals from 1986-95. To hold these countries accountable for the ozone hole, each country's territorial share of the area of peak depletion in the ozone hole (enclosed by the 220 DU contour) is shown in the table. THE NEED FOR ACTION The ozone layer is more damaged and vulnerable than ever. The annual spring Antarctic ozone "hole" now reaches an area of 23,000,000 square kilometres and continues to increase in area, depth and longevity. The first signs of an ozone hole are appearing over the less susceptible Arctic. Ozone depletion has reached significant levels over populated mid-latitudes and threatens an insidious rise in skin cancers, crop damage, and ecological harm due to additional ultra-violet radiation. FIGURE 2: NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RANK COUNTRY SHARE SIZE OF HOLE SALES VALUE (SQ KM) ($US ,000) 1 United States 30.85% 7,458,209 $10,886,350 2 Japan 12.42% 2,857,290 $4,270,850 3 United Kingdom 8.62% 1,982,967 $2,388,400 4 Germany 8.32% 1,914,455 $2,614,750 5 France 7.71% 1,774,054 $2,299,750 6 Israel 6.45% 1,484,431 $230,000 7 Russia 5.65% 1,298,867 $1,901,787 8 China 5.19% 1,194,607 $847,600 9 Italy 2.58% 592,955 $943,750 10 Netherlands 2.45% 564,557 $957,500 11 Spain 1.95% 448,500 $759,500 12 India 1.00% 229,885 $231,000 13 Brazil 0.91% 210,232 $364,750 14 Canada 0.91% 209,847 $363,500 15 South Korea 0.73% 167,026 $208,299 16 Mexico 0.71% 164,148 $275,000 17 Australia 0.69% 158,089 $252,223 18 Greece 0.67% 154,897 $250,000 19 Ukraine 0.56% 129,081 $20,000 20 South Africa 0.50% 114,667 $175,000 21 Taiwan 0.42% 97,693 $190,000 22 Venezuela 0.31% 71,511 $127,500 23 Argentina 0.20% 46,168 $72,500 24 Czech Republic 0.13% 29,775 $40,000 25 Romania 0.05% 11,054 $12,000 Total 100.00% 23,000,000 $30,500,010 Based upon estimated production of ODS, 1986 to 1995; 20-Year time-weighted ODP; and estimated sales value of chemicals produced. Prior to the opening of the ozone hole, scientists expected ozone depletion to increase slowly and gradually with rising concentrations of ODS. This thinking was utterly overturned by the discovery of unpredicted and dramatic loss of ozone over Antarctica. The ozone hole formed because of unforeseen reactions on polar stratospheric clouds; the Mount Pinatubo volcano resulted in new ozone destroying reactions forming on sulphate aerosols injected into the stratosphere. Other mechanisms are poorly understood - such as the interaction of ozone depletion with tropospheric climate change - or remain the subject of speculation. There may be mechanisms that remain unknown at present, only to be discovered in catastrophic circumstances in the next century. The problem is one of risk. We have only one Earth, one ozone layer, to experiment with. The behaviour of the ozone layer has shown that it is not possible to make comforting but simplistic relationships between ODS concentrations and ozone depletion, and the resulting excess global exposure to harmful ultra-violet radiation. The discovery of the ozone hole in 1985 showed us all that change in our poorly understood atmosphere can be non- linear, and catastrophic. THE REQUIRED RESPONSE - URGENT ACTION TO CONTROL OZONE DEPLETERS The only credible solution is to reduce the risk as rapidly as possible. The only plausible way to do this is to eliminate emissions of ozone destroying gases world wide in the minimum technically possible time. It is necessary to push the implementation of viable alternative technologies to the limits of human ingenuity and resources. The threat to the ozone layer should be seen as an issue of national and global security, not simply a discretionary environmental expenditure. Greenpeace believes that a full and complete ban on all ozone depleting substances is possible both technically and economically today. The only barriers to this change are political. THE ACTUAL RESPONSE - ARGUMENTS ABOUT MONEY The Parties to the Montreal Protocol have begun to indulge in cost-benefit analysis. Effectively they are trying to put a price on the ozone layer by refusing to bear the supposed costs of the most rapid phase out schedules. The progress on all key issues facing the Parties is now dominated by discussions of cost. There are five main issues facing the Parties at the Vienna meeting of the Montreal Protocol. In each case, an implicit or explicit trade off is made between costs and the ozone layer. Yet there is absolutely no basis on which the risks of continued ODS emissions can be quantified - and no attempt is made to do this. Who is to say that doubling annual funds supplied to developing countries is too much to spend on phasing out CFCs? Who is to say the expense of scrapping HCFC using equipment is not justified by the need to protect the ozone layer? The five main issues facing the Parties are described in the following sections: 1) The phase out of ODS in developing countries This is closely linked to the funding provided by the industrialised world through the Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol. Phase out of CFCs by 2006 in developing countries has been ruled out on economic grounds. This means that Parties to the Protocol are, at best, going to maintain the current status quo of CFC phaseout in 2010 -- or possibly even weaken international commitment to phasing out CFCs. At the 1995 Geneva Open Ended Working Group of the Montreal Protocol, the report of the sub- group on options for Article 5 (developing) countries considered costs of phasing out CFCs in developing countries and concluded: "... the average annual disbursements of the 2006 scenario, for example, is almost twice the present disbursements and was unlikely to be feasible. ... The three remaining scenarios of 2006 with a tail, 2010, and 2010 with a tail are manageable from a resource point of view " (22 August 1995). In this case a judgement has been made that the advantage of phasing out CFCs in developing countries by 2006, rather than 2010, does not justify a doubling of annual contributions to the multilateral fund. Current annual total contributions are $170 million, from the 46 industrialised nations that contribute to the fund. By comparison, these countries produced and sold an estimated $28.5 billion worth of ozone depleting substances over the past ten years. 2) The phase out of ODS in Russia and other "economies in transition" Russia entered the Montreal Protocol as a developed country and has taken on commitments that it claims its economy can no longer support. At the 1995 Geneva Open Ended Working Group meeting, a joint statement was made by Russia and several Eastern European countries: "In the light of the economic crisis in the countries with economies in transition, there is no possibility of full compliance with the Montreal Protocol..." These countries have requested a relaxation of the time limit for phasing out CFCs from 1996 until 2000. These countries currently have arrears to the Multilateral Fund of over $50 million. 3) The phase out of HCFCs in the industrialised world HCFCs are ozone depleting chemicals. It is claimed that the investment in these mistaken alternatives to CFCs should be protected, even though there are perfectly adequate alternatives to HCFCs available. Some European countries plan to phase out their use of HCFCs within the next five years. Others claim that they are needed for more than thirty. The justification for continuing to use these ozone depleting chemicals is purely profit led. The UN Environment Programme Technical and Economic Assessment panel (TEAP) says: "It is technically feasible but possibly not economically feasible to completely phase out by 2015 because HCFC will still be required to service HCFC-based refrigeration and air conditioning equipment with a useful lifetime beyond 2015". 4) The phase out of methyl bromide Global production of the pesticide, methyl bromide, is the growing more rapidly than any other ODS. Methyl bromide is one of the most potent ozone depleters - particularly in the short term. As this inventory reveals, over the next twenty years, methyl bromide produced over the past decade will cause as much depletion as halons. Since new methyl bromide production and consumption continues in industrial countries (unlike halons, which have been banned), this chemical group is the second ranked ozone destroyer, after CFCs, for the medium term. Some countries already manage without methyl bromide altogether (for example, it has been phased out in the Netherlands), but other countries claim their agriculture can not function without it. A detailed three year study conducted by United Nations Environment Programme has already identified technically feasible alternatives, either currently available or at an advanced state of development for over 90% of methyl bromide's uses. Clearly there are no scientific or technical reasons not to ban this chemical. It is clear from the following statement that some form of economic calculation will guide the commitments that the European Community will accept: "... noting the significant ozone depleting potential of methyl bromide, the European Community recognises the ultimate objective of the elimination of its emissions, on the basis of developments in scientific knowledge and taking into account technical and economic conditions." 5) New commitments by developing countries to control HCFCs and Methyl Bromide There are, at present, no commitments relating to the consumption of HCFCs or methyl bromide in developing countries. Developing countries will require funding if they are to take on further commitments. According to the meeting report of the 1995 Geneva Open Ended Working Group, China and the Group of 77 believe that: "Any further consideration of new commitments, such as those related to methyl bromide, HCFCs or any new phase out scenario, would require a corresponding action regarding provision of funding." WHAT PRICE THE OZONE LAYER? When considering the implicit valuation of the ozone layer, it may be worth contemplating the following expenditures: 1 x B-2 Stealth Bomber: US$2 billion 3-year budget for developing country phase out of CFCs: US$510 million Phasing out developing country CFCs by 2000: US$5.4 billion The crucial decisions to be made in the Montreal Protocol may require costs regarded as "not feasible" by the Parties or their advisory committees. However, according to the Polluter Pays Principle, these costs can and should be recovered from those who are responsible for the ozone destruction. The polluters did not pay for the destruction caused by CFCs at the time they were sold, but there is every reason to ensure that future commitments fall on those who have been historically responsible for the problem. Such commitments should include: * Payments to developing countries to phase out ozone depleting substances * Compensation for scrapping ODS using equipment before the end of its useful life * Accelerated development of safe alternative technologies * Recycling, collection and destruction technologies * Leak prevention and enforcement FUTURE PROFITS Over the next twenty years, the ozone layer will face the greatest ever onslaught of ozone destroying chlorine and bromine. This is a period of very great risk in which every conceivable effort must be made to reduce the emissions of ozone destroying gases. The history of ozone depletion has been one of nasty surprises and unforeseen mechanisms of ozone destruction, and this will undoubtedly continue. CFCs, HCFCs and methyl bromide are not banned chemicals. While many of the companies listed in this report will continue to profit from ozone destruction for years to come, action to control continuing emissions of ozone depleting chemicals have become hindered by arguments about money. METHODOLOGY WHOSE CHLORINE... is the world's most comprehensive catalog of the names and locations of producers of ozone depleting substances. It estimates the amount of ozone destroyers made by each producer over the past ten years. And, it calculates the total potential for ozone layer destruction caused by this production, using standard Montreal Protocol "ozone depletion potential" (ODP) ratings and semi-empirical time- weighted ozone depletion potentials. This inventory and its estimates are based upon a wide array of international and national government records, reports by news media, industry and non-governmental organizations, and company correspondence. All figures contained in this report, unless otherwise noted, should be considered to be estimates, not precise production numbers. Certain sources -- such as annual country reports submitted to the Montreal Protocol Secretariat, chemical and country-specific reports produced by Montreal Protocol and Multilateral Fund committees, and European Union annual reports -- provided hard data about production in specific countries, and at specific plants, for certain years. Industrial associations such as the Alternative Fluorocarbons Environmental Acceptability Study, the European Council of Chemical Manufacturers Federation (CEFIC) and the Halogenated Solvents Industry Association have reported cumulative annual levels of production worldwide by their members. Media reports and company press releases provided information about plant openings, capacities and closures. These global, national, and company-specific information sources thus provided the framework for each estimate. After the author compiled preliminary estimates, Greenpeace campaigners around the world contacted most of the producing companies and governments to confirm, deny or refine these numbers. Some companies and governments did provide precise cumulative 1986-1995 production data. Many government officials provided cumulative production data, but usually did not distinguish individual companies' production numbers. These responses refined our preliminary estimates. Other corporations responded to correct a specific error, but refused to confirm or deny the other information, claiming that such data is confidential and proprietary. Some replied to say that they could not reply in the time given, but indicated that they might do so in the future. And others did not respond at all to our faxes and phone calls. Where companies and governments did respond with precise information, the estimates were revised accordingly. In some cases, industry and government sources both supplied data which did not match; in these cases, industry's numbers are used in this report. Since this is the world's first comprehensive attempt to catalog ozone destruction production, with varying degrees of cooperation provided by the producing companies and governments, the estimates in this report should be considered preliminary. Further information from producing companies and governments will help refine future editions of this inventory. Scope: This inventory does not cover certain ozone depleting substances, one of which -- carbon tetrachloride -- is part of the Montreal Protocol. Other sources of ozone depletion not covered by the Protocol, nor by this Inventory, include: chlorine released by rockets in the stratosphere, nitrogen oxides, and bromine released by the burning of biomass. These chemicals are not included due to limitations in data availability on the production and the ozone depleting potential of these chemicals. We focus on production figures (rather than consumption) because it is the producer nations and the producers themselves that have been the slowest to accept the need to change. The economies of producer nations and the shareholders and directors of producer companies have been enriched by the production of CFCs and other ozone depleters. Ozone Depletion Potential Values: There are (at least) two ways of looking at the effects of ozone depleting gases: 1. Long term (Montreal Protocol ODP): This measure estimates the cumulative damage over all time that release of each unit of ODS will cause relative to CFC-11. This approach is used by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and it gives a picture of the average long term effect. However, it significantly underestimates the danger arising from fast- acting, short-lived ozone depleters. These do most of their damage in the first few years after release. The problem is that over the next few years atmospheric chlorine and bromine concentrations will be at their highest, and it is over this period we should want to do most to reduce the concentrations. The use of long term comparisons of ozone depletion potential (ODP) obscures the disproportionate role of fast-acting ozone depleters in adding to the risks of catastrophic ozone loss. 2. Medium term (20 Year ODP): This measure estimates the damage caused over the next twenty years relative to CFC-11. This increases the prominence of fast-acting ozone depleters and more realistically reflects the risks associated with adding to already unprecedented levels of chlorine and bromine expected over the next couple of decades. This distinction is not an academic curiosity. The substances that are most controversial and about which the Parties to the Montreal Protocol have greatest reluctance to take action are HCFCs and Methyl Bromide. These compounds are particularly aggressive over the medium term. Compared to the relatively slow-acting CFC-11, which is used as a base for comparing ozone depleting potential, these compounds do 3-5 times more damage over twenty years than over the long term. The inappropriate use of long term ODPs serves to conceal the risks taken by the Parties as they equivocate over action to control HCFCs and Methyl Bromide. For this reason, we show the responsibility of nations and companies for producing ozone depleting chemicals measured by their lifetime impact and by their 20 year impact. We have also shown other measures to give the reader an appreciation for the importance of picking the correct timeframe. [NOTE: TO READ THIS TABLE, CHANGE MARGINS TO 0, 0] OZONE DEPLETION POTENTIAL (ODP) RATES: Chemical Mont. 5- 10- 20- 30- 50- 100- 500- Group Prot. year year year year year year year CFCs 0.94 0.666 0.673 0.692 0.704 0.730 0.796 0.985 HCFC-22 0.055 0.19 0.17 0.14 0.12 0.09 0.066 0.055 HCFC-123a/ 0.10 0.335 0.155 0.08 0.056 0.038 0.026 0.022 124a HCFC-141b/ 0.09 0.426 0.36 0.273 0.218 0.163 0.115 0.097 142b Halon-1211 3.0 11 9.6 7.2 5.7 4.1 2.9 2.4 Halon-1301 10.0 10.3 10.4 10.7 10.9 11.4 12.4 14.4 Halon-2402 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Methyl 0.6 17.0 7.0 3.0 2.0 1.3 0.92 0.76 Bromide Methyl 0.1 0.59 0.21 0.089 0.059 0.039 0.027 0.022 Chloroform [MARGINS SET BACK TO NORMAL] Note: 5 to 500-year rates are based upon "Semi-empirical time-dependent ozone-depletion potentials," in: Arjun Makhijani and Kevin Gurney, Mending the Ozone Hole: Science, Technology, and Policy (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1995). No rate is given for Halon-2402; therefore, this chemical's Montreal Protocol ODP is used for all calculations. Sales Value Calculations: This Inventory uses the following rates to calculate estimated sales value: CFCs: $2.00 per kilogram Halon-1211: $3.00/kg HCFC-22: $2.50/kg Halon-1301: $2.50/kg HCFC-123a/124a: $10.00/kg Halon-2402: $2.00/kg HCFC-141b/142b: $4.00/kg Methyl Bromide: $1.00/kg Methyl Chloroform: $0.75/kg PRODUCTION TABLES [NOTE - PRODUCTION TABLES NOT AVAILABLE IN THIS VERSION OF REPORT. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION (INCLUDING THE FIGURES USED TO BUILD THE CHARTS) PLEASE REFER TO THE PRINT VERSION. (LAST UPDATE 12/07/95). ] Chlorine and bromine are the primary ozone destroying components of chemicals produced by over forty-two companies and twenty- five countries over the past ten years. The following charts identify who has produced what ozone depleting chemicals in the years 1986 to 1995. These are sorted by company, country of production, and by chemical. They describe the sales made by each country and company, the relative contribution of these countries and companies to ozone depletion, and the rank of each country and company in producing individual chemicals. Please note that, in the tables sorted by companies only, some corporate production estimates include portions of production listed in the overall tables under different names. Where estimated production by companies includes portions of production in joint ventures: * 50% of Mitsui-DuPont's production is allocated to DuPont. * 50% of both Pacific Chemicals and Produven are allocated to Elf-Atochem. * and, 27% of SICNG's production is credited to Rhone- Poulenc. Where a company took over production at a particular plant: * 75% of Polifin's production is allocated to ICI. * Pre-March 1994 estimated production at the Weert, Netherlands, CFC plant is allocated to Akzo Chemie; post-March 1994 production is allocated to Allied- Signal. Individual rankings for HBFCs and Halon-2402 are not included here, because these chemicals have been produced by only one company/country. All of the information contained in these charts should be considered to be estimated, rather than actual, data; however, most companies and countries have been contacted to verify, deny or revise preliminary estimates. The following lists the charts and tables included in the print version of this document, and tables accompagnied by a pie chart appear in italics. SORTED BY PRODUCTION SITE Table A-1: Overall Production, 1986 to 1995: Sorted by Production Sites. Table A-2: Ozone Depletion Potentials and Sales Values of Production: Sorted by Production Sites. SORTED BY CHEMICAL GROUP Table B-1: Ozone Depletion Potential, by Chemical Group. Table B-2: Sales Value of Chemicals Produced. SORTED BY CORPORATION Table C-1: Corporate Production: ODP Over Time (3-D Chart) Table C-2: Corporate Production: Ozone Depleting Substances, 1986 to 1995. Table C-3: Corporate Production: Estimated Sales Value and ODP. Table C-4: Corporate Rankings: Montreal Protocol ODP Values. Table C-5: Corporate Rankings: 20-Year ODP Values. Table C-6: Corporate Rankings: CFC Production. Table C-7: Corporate Rankings: HCFC-22 Production. Table C-8: Corporate Rankings: HCFC-123a/124a Production. Table C-9: Corporate Rankings: HCFC-141b/142b Production. Table C-10: Corporate Rankings: Halon-1211 Production. Table C-11: Corporate Rankings: Halon-1301 Production. Table C-12: Corporate Rankings: Methyl Bromide Production. Table C-13: Corporate Rankings: Methyl Chloroform Production. Table C-14: Corporate Rankings: Sales Value of Production. SORTED BY COUNTRY Table D-1: National Production: ODP Over Time (3-D Chart) Table D-2: National Production: Ozone Depleting Substances, 1986 to 1995. Table D-3: National Production: Estimated Sales Value and ODP. Table D-4: National Rankings: Montreal Protocol ODP Values. Table D-5: National Rankings: 20-Year ODP Values. Table D-6: National Rankings: CFC Production. Table D-7: National Rankings: HCFC-22 Production. Table D-8: National Rankings: HCFC-123a/124a Production. Table D-9: National Rankings: HCFC-141b/142b Production. Table D-10: National Rankings: Halon-1211 Production. Table D-11: National Rankings: Halon-1301 Production. Table D-12: National Rankings: Methyl Bromide Production. Table D-13: National Rankings: Methyl Chloroform Production. Table D-14: National Rankings: Sales Value of Production. SORTED BY REGION Table E-1: Regional Rankings: Montreal Protocol ODP Values. Table E-2: Regional Rankings: 20-Year ODP Values. INVENTORY OF PRODUCTION PLANTS The following inventory lists the known producers of ODS during the years 1986 to 1995. Last known production capacities are listed, except for plants known to be closed. Production capacity does not equal actual production; in industrial countries, Montreal Protocol regulations have limited the amount of production allowed at many of these plants considerably below the actual capacities. ARGENTINA CFC + HCFC-22 Production Plant: Du Pont (Ducilio) Closed in late 1993/early 1994. AUSTRALIA CFC Production Plants: Monsanto (Sydney, New South Wales) Operated under name of Australian Fluorine Chemicals. Apparently closed in 1989. Pacific Chemicals Industries (Sydney, New South Wales) Joint venture between Elf- Atochem and Dutch bank. To end production in November 1995. HCFC-22 Production Plant: Pacific Chemicals BRAZIL CFC Production Plants: 1995 Production Capacity: 20,000 tonnes. Du Pont Pledged to phase-out production by end of 1995. Hoechst (Suzano) Pledged to phase-out production by end of 1995. HCFC-22 Plants: 1995 Production Capacity: 10,000 tonnes. Du Pont Hoechst (Suzano) Methyl Chloroform Plant: Dow Capacity: 13,000 tonnes. CANADA CFC Production Plants: Allied-Signal (Amherstburg, Ontario) Closed in 1993. Du Pont (Maitland, Ontario) Closed in January 1993. HCFC-22 Production Plant: Allied-Signal (Amherstburg, Ontario) CHINA CFC Production Plants: Overall Capacity (1995): at least 50,000 tonnes. Producers include: Jinan Chemicals Quzou Chemicals Taizhou Others unknown HCFC-22 Plants: Overall Capacity (1995): at least 20,000 tonnes Producers include: Jinan Chemicals Jinsha Taizhou Others unknown HCFC-141b/142b Plants: Producers unknown. Other HCFC producers in China include Changziang, Fushun, Fuxing, Henan No 1, Shanluo and Shanghai Chlor-Alkali. Halon-1211, -1301; Methyl Bromide; Methyl Chloroform: Producers unknown Note: Elf-Atochem is planning to enter into a joint venture with a Chinese company to produce HCFCs and possibly CFCs in 1996. CZECH REPUBLIC CFC Production Plant: Spolek Chemical Works /Spolchemie (Usti-nad-Labem) To close end of 1995, may convert to HCFCs. FRANCE CFC Production Plants: Elf-Atochem (Pierre-Benite and Salindres) Salindres plant closed in 1990. Remaining production shifted to Spain plant in 1995. HCFC-22 Production Plants: Elf-Atochem (Pierre-Benite and Salindres) 1995 Capacity: less than 40,000 metric tons. HCFC-141b/142b Plants: Elf-Atochem (Pierre-Benite) 1995 Capacity: 40,000 tonnes. Solvay (Taveaux) 1995 Capacity: Expanding to 40,000 tonnes. Methyl Bromide Plant: Elf-Atochem (Port du Bouc, Bouches du Rhone) Halon 1211 and Halon 1301 Plant: Elf-Atochem Methyl Chloroform Plant: Producer Unknown. GERMANY CFC production plants: Hoechst (Frankfurt) Closed May 1994. Solvay (Baden-Wimpfen) Produced under subsidiary's name (Kali-Chemie) Closed July 1994. VEB Chemiewerk (Nunchritz) in former E. Germany, also known as Fluorwerke Dohna HCFC-22 plants: Hoechst (Frankfurt) 1995 Capacity: 20,000 tonnes. Solvay (Baden-Wimpfen) 1995 Capacity: 12,000 tonnes. VEB Chemiewerk (Nunchritz) Halon-1211 and -1301 plant: Solvay (Baden-Wimpfen) Closed in 1991. Methyl Chloroform plant: Dow Closed in 1994. GREECE CFC Production Plant: SICNG (Thessaloniki) 1995 Capacity: 17,000 tonnes - CFCs; to close by end of 1995. Sixty percent of SICNG is owned by the National Bank of Greece; 27% by Rhone-Poulenc; and 13% by an individual. Production started in 1974. HCFC-22 Production: SICNG (Thessaloniki) 1995 Capacity: At least 4,500 tonnes. Production started in 1988. INDIA CFC + HCFC-22 Plants: 1995 Capacity: 30,000 tons CFCs/HCFCs (all are swing plants) Chemplast/Chemical & Plastics India Ltd. Gujarat Fluorochemicals (Gujarat) Mettur Chemicals Navin Fluorine (Gujarat) Shwram Fibres/SRFF (Delhi) Halon-1211, Halon-1301, Methyl Bromide and Methyl Chloroform Plants: Producers unknown. 1995 Capacities: At least 1,000 tonnes halons, 2,000 tonnes methyl bromide, and 1,500 tonnes methyl chloroform. ISRAEL Methyl Bromide Plant: Dead Sea Bromide (Beer- Sheva) 1995 Capacity: At least 75,000 tonnes. ITALY CFC Production Plants: Ausimont (Porto Marghera and Spinetta Marengo) 1994 Capacity: 10,000 tonnes at Porto Marghera for CFCs 113, 114, and 115 only; 40,000 tonnes at Spinetta Marengo for CFCs 11 and 12 only. Ausimont is a subsidiary of Montcatini. HCFC-22 Production Plant: Ausimont (Spinetta Marengo) 1995 Capacity: 22,000 tonnes at Porto Marghera HCFC-123a/124a Plant: Ausimont (Porto Marghera) 1995 Capacity: Expanding capacity to 30,000 tonnes. JAPAN CFC production plants: Asahi Glass (Ichihara) Closed before May 1995. Central Glass (Ube and Yamaguchi) Expected to close by end of 1995. Daikin (Kashima, Osaka and Yodogawa) 1995 Capacity: at least 70,000 tonnes. Mitsui-DuPont (Chiba and Shimizu) 1995 Capacity: 30,000 tonnes. . Showa Denko (Kawasaki and Ube) 1995 Capacity: 12,000 tonnes. Ube plant closed in June 1989. . HCFC-22 plants: Asahi Glass (Ichihara) 1995 Capacity: At least 20,000 tonnes. Daikin (Kashima and Yodogawa) Mitsui-DuPont (Chiba and Shimizu) Has also produced limited amounts of HCFC-123a and HCFC-141b Showa Denko (Kawasaki) Also has planned to produced HCFC- 123a and HCFC-141b HCFC-123a/124a plants: Asahi Glass (Kashima) 1995 Capacity: At least 1,000 tonnes. Mitsui-DuPont (Chiba and Shimizu) 1995 Capacity: 10,000 tonnes. HCFC-141b/142b plants: Asahi Glass (Kashima) Expanding production capacity to 17,000 tonnes. Asahi is also producing HCFC-225ca and 225cb here. Central Glass (Kawasaki). Expanding. Daikin (Kashima and Yodogawa) 1995 Capacity: 15,000 tonnes. Halon-1211 and -1301 plants: Asahi Glass Closed by end of 1993. Daikin Closed by end of 1993. Nippon Halon Closed by end of 1993. Methyl Bromide plants: Doukai Kagaku (Kitakyushu City, Fukuoka-ken) 1995 Capacity: At least 1,500 tonnes. Started production in 1988. Ichikawa Gousei (Chiba Plant: Chiba City, Chiba-ken) 1995 Capacity: At least 150 tonnes. Nihon Kayaku (Kashima-gun, Ibaraki-ken) 1995 Capacity: At least 1,500 tonnes. Nippou Kagaku (Senmachi Plant: Isumi-gun, Chiba-ken) 1995 Capacity: At least 1,500 tonnes. Sankou Kagaku (Sagami Plant: Kousa-gun, Kanagawa-ken) 1995 Capacity: At least 2,400 tonnes. Teijin Kasei (Mihara City, Hiroshima-ken) 1995 Capacity: At least 3,100 tonnes. Methyl Chloroform plants: Asahi Kasei (Hyuga, Miyazaki) Asahi-Penn (Ichihara) Central Chemical (Kawasaki) Kanto Denka (Mizushima) Toagosei (Tokushima) Tosoh (Shin-Nanyo, Yamaguchi) MEXICO CFC and HCFC-22 Production: DuPont Formerly known as Halocarburos S.A. (DuPont subsidiary). Intended to end production by end of 1994. Quimobasicos Subsidiary of Allied-Signal. NETHERLANDS CFC Plants: Allied Signal (Weert) Purchased from Akzo Chemie in March 1994. 1995 Production Capacity: 25,000 tonnes. Du Pont (Dordrecht) Closed in June 1994. HCFC-22 Plant: Du Pont (Dordrecht). No longer prùÝ0koduces for emissive use. ROMANIA CFC, Methyl Bromide and Methyl Chloroform Plants: Producers unknown. 1995 Capacities: 2,000 tonnes CFCs; small amounts methyl bromide; 100 tonnes methyl chloroform. RUSSIA CFC Production Plants: Overall capacity 1995: over 75,000 tonnes. Altaichimprom Production Association (Slavogorod, Altay) 1995 production capacity: 30,000 tons. Kirovo Chepetsky Chemical Plant (Kirovo-Chepetsk, Kirovskiy). Produces CFC 113 and 114. Production Association Kaustik (Volgograd). Produces CFC 11 and 12. Redkinskiy experimental plant (Konakovskiy, Tver). Produces CFC 13 only. Ural Industrial Union Halogen (Perm City) Produces CFC 11 and 12. Volgograd Chemical (VOCCO/Chimprom) (Volgograd) Produces CFC 11, 12, 113. HCFC-22 Plants: Kirovo Chepetsky Chemical Plant (Kirovo-Chepetsk) Ural Industrial Union Halogen (Perm City) HCFC-141b/142b Plants: Producers Unknown Halon-1211, 1301, and 2402 Plants: Producers unknown. Stopped production of Halon 1211 in 1991; stopped production of Halon 1301 at end of 1994; 1995 production capacity of Halon 2402: Less than 4,000 tonnes. SPAIN CFC + HCFC-22 Production Plants: Elf-Atochem (Zaramillo) 1995 Production capacity: 10,000 tonnes; will produce for export and essential use after 1995. Hoechst (Terragona) Ceased CFC production at end of 1988. Solvay (Torrelavega) Formerly Kali-Chemie. Closed in July 1992. SOUTH AFRICA CFC + HCFC-22 Production Plant: Polifin (location unknown). Former subsidiary of ICI; formerly known as African Explosives and Chemicals Industries (AECI). Will close by end of 1995. 1995 Production Capacity: 10,000 tonnes. SOUTH KOREA CFC, HCFC-22 and Halon-1211 Plants: Hankook Shin Itwa (Ulsan). Formerly named Ulsan Chemical. 1995 Production Capacity: 10,000 tonnes. TAIWAN CFC, HCFC-22 and HCFC-141/142 Plants: Formosa Plastics (Jenwu City). UKRAINE Methyl Bromide Plant: Producer unknown. 1995 Production Capacity: 2,000 tonnes. UK CFC Production Plants: ICI (Runcorn). Closed, sold production allowances to Akzo/Allied plant in 1994. Rhone-Poulenc (Avonmouth) Formerly ISC Chemical/Rio Tinto Zinc. 1994 Production capacity: 25,000 tonnes. HCFC-22 Plants: ICI (Runcorn). 1995 Production capacity: 22,000 tonnes. Rhone-Poulenc (Avonmouth) 1995 Production capacity: 7,000 tonnes. Halon-1211 Plant: ICI (Runcorn) Closed by end of 1993. Methyl Chloroform Plant: ICI (Runcorn) 1995 Production capacity: 70,000 tonnes. USA CFC production plants: Allied-Signal (Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Danville, Illinois; and El Segundo, California) Danville plant closed in August 1994; El Segundo plant converted to HCFC-141b/142b in 1992. Baton Rouge operating, and will probably produce for export and essential use after 1995. DuPont (Antioch, California; Corpus Christi, Texas; Deepwater, New Jersey; and Montague, Michigan) Antioch plant closed in July 1995; Deepwater plant ended CFC 11 and 12 production in 1992; Montague ended production of CFCs 11 and 12 in July 1995. Status of DuPont's considerable production of CFCs 113, 114, and 115 is unclear. It produced CFC 113 and 114 in Corpus Christi and Montague, and CFC 115 in Deepwater, in 1994. Elf-Atochem (Calvert City, Kentucky). Elf-Atochem bought this plant from Pennwalt in 1990. Closed by end of 1994. Laroche (Gramercy, Louisiana). Formerly owned by Kaiser Aluminum. Closed by end of 1993. HCFC-22 plants: Allied-Signal (Baton Rouge and El Segundo) DuPont (Antioch, Louisville and Montague) Elf-Atochem (Calvert City and Wichita, Kansas). Wichita plant formerly owned by Racon. Wichita plant capacity: 20,000 tonnes; capacity of Calvert City plant is unclear. Laroche (Gramercy) Ended production by end of 1993. HCFC-123a/124a plants: Allied-Signal (Geismar, Louisiana) 1995 Capacity: 13,600 tonnes, expanding to 26,000 tonnes in 1996. DuPont (Antioch and Corpus Christi) 1995 Capacity in Corpus Christi: less than 35,000 tonnes; capacity of Antioch plant unknown. Halocarbon Products (N. Augusta, South Carolina) Production very limited. HCFC-141b/142b plants: Allied-Signal (El Segundo) 1995 Capacity: 27,000 tonnes. Ausimont (Thorofare, N.J.) Bought from Pennwalt in late 1989. 1995 Capacity: 12,500 tonnes. DuPont (Corpus Christi) Capacity unknown. Elf-Atochem (Calvert City) 1995 Capacity: at least 50,000 tonnes. Laroche (Gramercy) 1995 Capacity: at least 30,000 tonnes. Halon-1211 plants: Great Lakes Chemical (El Dorado, Arkansas) Closed by end of 1993. ICI (location unknown) Closed by end of 1993. Halon-1301 plants: DuPont (location unknown) Closed by end of 1993. Great Lakes (El Dorado) Closed by end of 1993. Methyl Bromide plants: Ethyl Corp. (Magnolia, Arkansas) 1995 Capacity: 20,000 tonnes. Great Lakes (El Dorado) 1995 Capacity: 10,000 tonnes. Methyl Chloroform plants: Dow Chemical (Freeport, Texas) 1994 Capacity: 250,000 tonnes. PPG Industries (Lake Charles, Louisiana) 1994 Capacity: 175,000 tonnes. Vulcan (Geismar, Louisiana) 1994 Capacity: 100,000 tonnes. HBFC-22b1 plant: Great Lakes (El Dorado) Very limited production. VENEZUELA CFC + HCFC-22 Production: Produven (location unknown). Joint venture between Elf- Atochem and Venezuelan government. GLOSSARY ARTICLE 5 COUNTRIES: Countries covered by Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Montreal Protocol. These are developing countries with a consumption of CFCs less than or equal to 0.3 kilograms per capita. Article 5 countries are able to negotiate delays in phasing out ozone depleting chemicals in comparison to industrialised countries. They also receive funds from the Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol to cover the incremental costs of phasing out ODS. BROMINE: A halogen that depletes ozone when released into the stratosphere. Of the chemical groups covered by this report, methyl bromide, halons and HBFCs release bromine into the stratosphere. CFCS (CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS): One of the families of ozone depleting substances (ODS). Chemicals comprised of chlorine, fluorine and carbon. Their atmospheric lifetimes range from 55 to 1,700 years. Scientists have invented dozens of kinds of CFCs, but three dominate commerce: CFC-12, used in foams, aerosols, refrigeration, sterilization, and air conditioning; CFC-11, used in foams, aerosols and industrial refrigeration; and, CFC-113, used in solvents. The Montreal Protocol bans the consumption of newly-made CFCs outside Article 5 countries beginning January 1, 1996. Non-Article 5 countries, however, may produce 15% of their 1986 CFC production levels after this date, for essential domestic use and for export to Article 5 countries. CHLORINE: A halogen that depletes ozone when released into the stratosphere. Of the chemical groups covered by this report, CFCs, HCFCs and methyl chloroform release chlorine into the stratosphere. HBFCs (Hydrobromofluorocarbons): A rarely-produced class of depleting chemicals. The only known HBFC in commerce, made by Great Lakes Chemical in the U.S., is used to retard fires in racing cars. Production and consumption of HBFCs are banned in non-Article 5 countries after 1996. Production and consumption in Article 5 countries are not restricted. HCFCs (Hydrochlorofluorocarbons): A family of ODS, many of which are used as substitutes for CFCs. Chemicals include hydrogen, chlorine, fluorine and carbon. Their atmospheric lifetimes range from 1.4 to 19.5 years. The most common HCFC, by far, is HCFC-22, which has been in production since the 1950s, and is used in refrigeration and foams. HCFCs-141b/142b are the second most common HCFCs, and are used in foams, and to a much more limited extent, as aerosols and solvents. Production of the third most-common group of HCFCs -- HCFCs 123a/124a -- began in the late 1980s, and finds little market demand. These chemicals are used mainly as refrigerants and sterilants. The Montreal Protocol caps consumption of HCFCs from 1996-2003 at levels equalling 103.1% of CFC consumption in 1989. This cap is then reduced to 65% from 2004 to 2009, 35% from 2010 to 2014, 10% from 2015 to 2019, 0.5% from 2020 to 2029, and zero thereafter. These countries, however, may produce unlimited amounts of HCFCs for consumption in Article 5 countries. No caps or phase-out dates have been set for Article 5 countries. HALONS: A family of ODS; three kinds of halons are commonly produced: Halon-1211 (which includes carbon, fluorine, chlorine and bromine; and Halons 1301 and 2402, which include carbon, fluorine and bromine. Their atmospheric lifetimes range from 20 to 77 years. These are most commonly used as fire retardants. The Montreal Protocol allows non-Article 5 countries to produce and consume halons after January 1994 up to 15% of 1986 levels. Article 5 countries face a delayed phase out in these chemicals. METHYL BROMIDE (ALSO KNOWN AS BROMOMETHANE): An ODS used as a fumigant --on soils, commodities and in quarantine. This chemical contains carbon, hydrogen and bromine. Its atmospheric lifetime is 2 years. Methyl bromide is also a by-product of low- temperature biomass burning. The Montreal Protocol limits production and consumption of methyl bromide in non-Article 5 countries beginning January 1995 at levels produced and consumed in 1991. There are no restrictions in Article 5 countries. METHYL CHLOROFORM (ALSO KNOWN AS 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE): An ODS used as a solvent, containing carbon, hydrogen and chlorine. Its atmospheric lifetime is 6.1 years. The Montreal Protocol caps production and consumption of methyl chloroform in non-Article 5 countries at levels 15% of those produced and consumed in 1989, beginning January 1, 1996. Article 5 countries face a delayed phase out in these chemicals. MONTREAL PROTOCOL: The full name of this international treaty is the "Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer." This agreement was signed in Montreal, Canada, on September 16, 1987, entered into force on January 1, 1989, and subsequently amended in London (June 1990) and Copenhagen, Denmark (November 1992). It followed the signing of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer in 1985. ODP (OZONE DEPLETION POTENTIAL): Ozone Depletion Potentials (ODPs) provide a relative measure of the expected impact on stratospheric ozone per unit mass emission of a gas, as compared to that expected from the same mass emission of CFC-11 integrated over time. The Montreal Protocol uses steady state ODPs which represent the cumulative effect on ozone over an infinite time. By contrast, a 20-Year ODP is a time-weighted depletion rating, which provides a more realistic measure of medium-term depletion. ODS (OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCE): Chlorine and bromine are the most potent ozone- destroying halogens; other depleting halogens are fluorine and iodine. Many natural and human-derived chemical compounds release chlorine and bromine into earth's stratosphere, thus depleting our ozone shield against ultraviolet radiation. Most depletion is caused by industrial chemicals covered in this report. Other sources include rockets which release chlorine as they pass through the stratosphere, nitrogen oxides, and biomass burned at low temperatures for fuel. SOURCES INDUSTRY Alternative Fluorocarbons Environmental Acceptability Study (AFEAS), Production, Sales and Atmospheric Release of Fluorocarbons Through 1993 (Washington, D.C., March 1995). Asahi Glass, communication with Greenpeace International, October 1995. Asahi-Penn Chemical Co., fax to Greenpeace International, October 30, 1995. Ausimont, communication with Greenpeace Italy, November 1995. Toni Brunet, Hoechst, fax to Greenpeace Spain, October 23, 1995. CEFIC (European Council of Chemical Manufacturers Federation), "The Changing Pattern of Use of Fluorocarbons in the European Community, 1976-1992: A Challenge To Industry" (Brussels). Josep Casas and Toni Brunet, Hoechst Iberia S.A., fax letter to Xavier Pastor, Greenpeace Spain, October 20, 1995. Central Glass, communication with Greenpeace International, October 1995. Thomas B. Crane, Manager, Communications, Allied-Signal Fluorine Products, Allied-Signal Inc.(U.S.), fax letter to Sean Clark, Greenpeace International Ozone Campaign, October 27, 1995. Daikin, communication with Greenpeace International, October 1995. Dow Chemical, communication with Sean Clark, Greenpeace U.S.A., October 1995. DuPont Europe (Switzerland), communication with Greenpeace Switzerland, October 18, 1995. Dupont Fluoroproducts (USA), fax letter to Sean Clark, Greenpeace International Ozone Campaign, October 20, 1995. Juan Antonio Enrich, Communication Director, Elf Atochem Espana, S.A., fax letter to Greenpeace Spain, October 20, 1995. European Methyl Bromide Association, "Position Paper," April 5, 1995. Greg Frewer, Operations Manager, Pacific Chemical Industries Pty Ltd., "CFC & HCFC-22 Production - 1986-1995," fax letter to Michael Russell, Greenpeace Australia, October 20, 1995. Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, "Estimates of Methyl Chloroform Production, Consumption, and Future Demand in Developing Countries," Washington, D.C., June 13, 1990. Dr. R. Franklin Handy, Research Associate, Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, "Methyl Bromide Production and Uses," September 29, 1992. ICI, fax letter to Clive Bates, Greenpeace UK, October 20, 1995. Japan Quarantine Association, Agricultural Handbook 1994. Angela D. McLachlan, Corporate Director of Public Affairs, LaRoche Industries Inc., fax letter to Sean Clark, Greenpeace International Ozone Campaign, October 20, 1995. Kenneth J. McDowell, Director, Environment, Health & Safety, Halocarbon Products Corporation, fax letters to Sean Clark, Greenpeace, October 17 and 20, 1995. Mitsui-DuPont, fax to Greenpeace International, October 1995. Solvay Spain, fax letter to Greenpeace Spain, October 30, 1995. J.H. Telgen, Allied-Signal (Netherlands), fax to Arjet Stevens, Greenpeace Netherlands, October 18, 1995. UNITED NATIONS/WORLD BANK "Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer," Concluded at Montreal, 16 September 1987; Entered into Force 1 January 1989; as amended in London, June 1990 and at Copenhagen, 23-25 November 1992. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Executive Committee for the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, "Survey on Production and Use of HCFCs," UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/12/Inf.4, February 23, 1994. UNEP, "Compliance with Control Measures on Production and Consumption," tables 2-5 in UNEP/OzL.Pro.4/6. Includes production and consumption data for most Montreal Protocol parties, for the period January 1989 to June 1991. UNEP, Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion: 1994 Assessment, (Nairobi, November 1994). UNEP, Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, Country Programme: India, OzL.Pro/ExCom/11/20, October 5, 1993. UNEP, Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, Meeting the Needs of Article 5 Parties for Controlled Substances During the Grace and Phase-out Periods: An Update, UNEP/OzL.Pro/WG.1/11/5, December 19, 1994. UNEP/Montreal Protocol, "1993 Data for Article 5 Countries," "1993 Data for Non-Article 5 Countries," "1992 Data for Article 5 Countries," "1992 Data for Non-Article 5 Countries," provided by Montreal Protocol Secretariat, Nairobi, Kenya, 1995. Includes production and consumption data for most, but not all, Montreal Protocol parties. UNEP/Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete The Ozone Layer, 1994 Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee; 1995 Assessment (Nairobi). UNEP/Montreal Protocol, Evaluation of the Use of Ozone Depleting substances as Chemical Process Agents and Alternatives: Report of the Chemical Process Agents Working Group of the TEAP (Nairobi, May 1995). UNEP/Montreal Protocol, Report of the Halons Technical Options Committee, 1991. UNEP/Montreal Protocol, Report of the Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee, December 1991. UNEP/Montreal Protocol, Report on the Review Under Paragraph 8 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol, UNEP/OzL.Pro/WG.1/11/4, December 19, 1994; especially, Exhibit 3-10, Chemical Prices, Exhibit 3-11, ODS Price Forecasts and Exhibit 3-12, Estimated ODS Production and Capacity in Article 5 Countries, page 39. UNEP/Montreal Protocol, Report of the Secretariat on the Reporting of Data by the Parties in Accordance with Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol, UNEP/OzL.Pro.3/5, May 23, 1991. UNEP/Montreal Protocol, Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, July 1993. UNEP/Montreal Protocol, Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, March 1995. UNEP/Montreal Protocol, Report of the UNEP Solvents, Coatings and Adhesives Technical Options Committee, 1991. UNEP/Montreal Protocol, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994 (Nairobi). UNEP/Montreal Protocol, Supplement to the 1994 Assessments (Nairobi, March 1995). Includes: Part I: Synthesis of the Reports of the Scientific Assessment Panel and Technology and Economic Assessment Panel; Part II: Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel; and Part III: Impact of HCFC and Methyl Bromide Emissions on Ozone Depletion: A Supplemental Report of the Science Assessment Panel. UNEP/Montreal Protocol, "Synthesis of the Reports of the Ozone Scientific Assessment Panel, Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, and Technology and Economic Assessment Panel," prepared by the Assessment Chairs for the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, November 1991. UNEP/OzonAction Information Clearinghouse, "CFC-Production and Related Issues," Information Paper (Paris), October 1994. Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, adopted 22 March 1985, Entered into Force 22 September 1988. R. Watson (NASA), D. Albritton (NOAA), S. Andersen (U.S. EPA), and S. Lee-Bapty (U.K. DOE), Methyl Bromide: Science and Technology and Economic Synthesis Report, Requested by UNEP, June 25, 1992. The World Bank, Global Environment Coordination Division, Environment Department, OORG Production Sector Working Group, The Availability of Hydrocarbons for ODS Phaseout in Developing Countries, OORG Report Number 12, April 1995. The World Bank, Global Environment Coordination Division, Environment Department, Brazil: Ozone Projects Trust Fund Grant: Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS Phaseout 1), Project Information Document, December 1993. The World Bank, Global Environment Coordination Division, Environment Department, China: Ozone Projects Trust Fund Grant: Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS Phaseout 2), Project Information Document, May 1994. The World Bank, Global Environment Coordination Division, Environment Department, India: Ozone Projects Trust Fund Grant: Technical Support and Investment Project (ODS Phaseout 1), Project Information Document, July 1994. The World Bank, Global Environment Coordination Division, Environment Department, Venezuela: Ozone Projects Trust Fund Grant for CFC-12 to HFC-134a Central Air Condition Systems Conversion (ODS Phaseout 1), Project Document, July 1994. The World Bank, Global Environment Facility, "Memorandum and Recommendation of the Director of the Central Europe Department of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to the Regional Vice President of the Europe and Central Asia Region on a Proposed Grant from the Global Environment Trust Fund in an Amount Equivalent to US$2.3 million to the Czech Republic for a Technical Support and Investment Project for the Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances," August 15, 1994. World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety, Methyl Bromide (Bromomethane) Health and Safety Guide (Geneva), Health and Safety Guide No. 86, 1994 NATIONAL/REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS Australian Environment Protection Agency, Ozone Protection Section, "Ozone Depleting Substances -- Activity by ODS Type, 1 July 1989 to 30 June 1995," October 1995. Directorate-General of Labour of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (Netherlands), Dutch expert committee for occupational standards, "Health-based recommended occupational exposure limit for methyl bromide," 1990. European Community, Office of Press and Public Affairs (Washington D.C.), "EC to Adopt Changes to Montreal Protocol," European Community News, November 30, 1992. Sylvie Faucheux and Jean-Francois Noel, Groupe de Prospective, Ministere de l'Environnment, "Enjeux Economiques Techniques et Ecologiques de Differentes Politiques Alternatives de Controle de l'Evolution de Lacouche d'Ozone," Paris, March 1988. Arturo Gonzalo Aizpiri, Spanish Government's General Director for Environmental Policy, fax letter to Greenpeace Spain, October 19, 1995. Japan, House of Representatives, February 1990. Japan, Ministry of Trade and Industry (MITI), Chemical Industrial Statistics. Catalina Mosler Garcia, Government of Mexico, National Institute of Ecology, International Cooperation -- Ozone Protection Unit, communication, October 1995. Russian Government, "Production, Import and Export of Ozone Destroying Materials in Russia (USSR) in 1986-1993." U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, "Merchandise Trade - Exports and Imports by Commodity," National Trade Data Bank, June 2, 1995. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Administrative Changes to Final Rule to Phase Out Ozone-Depleting Chemicals (40 CFR Part 82)," Federal Register, May 10, 1995, page 24969+. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division, "1994 Essential Use Applications by Applicant." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division, "Data from the Allowance Tracking System Maintained by the Stratospheric Protection division of EPA, 1989 to 1994, Aggregated Production, Import and Export, not ODP-weighted," 1995. ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS California Action Network, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, California Institute for Rural Studies, Friends of the Earth, National Coalition Against the Misues of Pesticides, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pesticide Action Network, Into the Sunlight: Exposing Methyl Bromide's Threat to the Ozone Layer, published by Friends of the Earth (Washington, D.C.), November 1992. Jack Doyle, Hold the Applause!: A Case Study of Corporate Environmentalism as Practiced at DuPont, Friends of the Earth (Washington, D.C.), August 1991. Friends of the Earth International, "Methyl Bromide: Ozone Toxin," 1992. Greenpeace (Steve Kretzmann), Money to Burn: The World Bank, Chemical Companies and Ozone Depletion, September 1994. Greenpeace (John Mate), Back to the Future: A Survey of Essential Information Regarding Hydrocarbons vs. HCFC-141b and HFC- 134a in Domestic Refrigerators, January 1995. Greenpeace Germany, "Actual Figures about the Production and Consumption of CFCs/HCFCs/HFCs - The Fairy Tale of Phase- Out," draft report, 1994. Greenpeace International, Climbing Out of the Ozone Hole: A Preliminary Survey of Alternatives to Ozone-Depleting Chemicals, October 1992. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Network, "Killing Fields," series of fact sheets on methyl bromide, San Francisco, 1995. A. Makhijani and K. Gurney, Institute for Energy and Enviornmental Research, Mending the Ozone Hole: Science, Technology and Policy (Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: MIT Press, 1995); especially, Table 4.1, Semi-empirical time-dependent ozone-depletion potentials (T-ODPs)(IEER calculations). Makhijani and Gurney, "Halocarbon and Chlorine Loading Model: Copenhagen Scenario. Halocarbon Production, Banking and Emissions," years 1985 to 2090, unpublished spreadsheet, 1995. Natural Resources Defense Council, Wanted: For Destruction of the Ozone Layer, Public Enemy No. 1,1,1 (1,1,1-Trichloroethane), New York, June 1990. Ozone Action (Jim Vallette), Deadly Complacency: U.S. CFC Production, the Black Market, and Ozone Depletion, Washington, September 1995. Pesticides Action Network, "Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: Excerpts from the U.N. Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee 1995 Assessment," May 1995. OTHER "$9.1 Million Modification Planned at Pennwalt's Calvert City Plant," Louisville Courier-Journal, November 18, 1989, page 12b. 1992 Directory of Chemical Producers: United States, SRI International (Menlo Park, California, 1992). 1994 Directory of Chemical Producers: Canada, SRI International (Menlo Park, California, 1994). 1994 Directory of Chemical Producers: United States, SRI International (Menlo Park, California, 1994). 1994 Directory of Chemical Producers: Western Europe, SRI International (Menlo Park, California, 1994). 1994/1995 Directory of Chemical Producers: East Asia, SRI International (Menlo Park, California, 1994). "Akzo Nobel Sells Dutch Chemicals Unit to Allied-Signal," New York Times, April 16, 1994, page 36. "Akzo Sells its HF and CFC Production at Weert to Allied-Signal," Chimie Actualities, No. 491, March 6, 1994. "Alchemist's Dream Come True: Chemical Giant (Great Lakes Chemical) Finds Profit in Lead for Gasoline," New York Times, August 17, 1995, page D1. "Allied-Signal Completes CFC Alternatives Production Facility," Specialty Chemicals, November 26, 1994. "Allied-Signal Completes Expansion," Rubber and Plastics News, Vol. 23, No. 1, November 27, 1993. "Allied-Signal Doubles 141B at El Segundo," Chemical Marketing Reporter, Vol. 244, No. 6, September 3, 1993. "Allied-Signal Dumps CFCs for HCFCs," Environment Week, September 14, 1989. "Allied-Signal Expands HCFC Plant, Closes CFC Unit in Illinois," Chemical Marketing Reporter, Vol. 245, No. 13, April 30, 1994. "Allied-Signal Increases the Production of CFC Alternatives," Atmospheric Pollution and Abatement News, September 1993. "Allied-Signal Shuts CFCs," Chemical Marketing Reporter, Vol. 246, No. 14, November 4, 1994. "Allied-Signal to Increase Capacity at Genetron(R) 141b Production Facility," Business Wire, March 22, 1994. "Allied-Signal will Open a Production Centre for CFC Substitutes," Ingenieria Quimica No. 304, December 1, 1994. "Allied Starts Geismar CFC Alternatives Plant," Chemical Marketing Reporter, Vol. 245, No. 25, July 15, 1994. "Allied Ups HCFC Capacity," Chemical Week, April 14, 1994. "Asahi Glass to End CFC Output this Year," Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun, June 24, 1994. "Asahi Glass to Expand Production of CFC Substitutes," Comline Japan Daily: Chemicals, December 4, 1990. "Ausimont Pioneers New Ozone-Friendly Refrigerant Gas," Il Sole -- 24 Ore, November 29, 1994. "CFC Beat: Europeans accused of dumping CFCs in South America," Electronic Chemicals News, October 30, 1992. "CFC Phaseout Milestone," Chemistry in Britain, Vol. 30, No. 1, March 27, 1994. "CFC Production in Greece Cut," Greenpeace Business, No. 23, May 28, 1995. "CFC Substitutes Losing Favour. Investment of over DM 1Bn a Waste of Time?," Chemisch Rundschau, Vol. 47, No. 7. "CFC Substitutes Plant Complete (Allied-Signal)," Chemical Engineering, Vol. 101, No. 7, August 9, 1994. "CFC, Triethane Targets for '94 Set at 25 and 50%," Japan Chemical Week, November 4, 1993. Charles Campbell, "New Fire Extinguishing Chemical Found Less Damaging to Ozone Layer," Associated Press, May 2, 1991. "Central Glass Intends to Apply Chlorine to Production Expansion for HCFC-141b," Japan Chemical Week, February 8, 1995. "Central Glass Starts Large-Scale Production of Freon Substitute," Comline Japan Daily: Chemicals, January 12, 1993. "Chemical Producers Blast EU Decision to Allow 131,000 ODP Tons of Imported CFCs," BNA International Environment Daily, March 10, 1994. "China CFCs jv for Elf Atochem," European Chemical News, July 10-16, 1995. "Czech Republic: How Much will the Regulation of CFC Production Cost," Hospodarski Noviny, Vol. 37, No. 119. Liat Collins, "Environment Ministry to Supervise Use of Methyl Bromide," Jerusalem Post, February 28, 1994. Liat Collins, "Sarid to Greenpeace: We'll Help Fight Ozone Problem," Jerusalem Post, August 25, 1993. "Companies Switch Production," Financial Times, March 4, 1994. "Control on Production of CFC and Its Substitutes Tightened in China," China Chemical Reporter No. 23, February 24, 1995. "Daikin Industries to Complete Freon-Substitute-Producing Plants This Year," Comline Japan Daily: Chemicals, January 7, 1993. "Daikin Kogyo to Build CFC Substitutes Plants," Tokyo Financial Wire, December 22, 1992 Guy Darst, "DuPont Ozone Decision Has Others `Scrambling,' Says Competitor," Associated Press, April 10, 1988. "Demand for Alternative Blends for R-502 and R-22 Leads Elf Atochem to Invest in HFC 143A Facility," Cancer Weekly, February 2, 1993. "DuPont Closing CFC Unit," Chemical Marketing Reporter, July 9, 1995. "DuPont -- Closure of a CFC Plant," Chemical Business Newsbase, February 3, 1995. "DuPont Extends CFC Production," Industrial Minerals, No. 317, March 12, 1994. "DuPont's Pullout, Faster HCFC Phaseout Add to Users' Concerns," Energy User News, May 1993, page 4. "DuPont Slims at Deepwater," Chemical Marketing Reporter, Vol. 245, No. 2. "DuPont Starts up HFC-134A Plant in Corpus Christi, Texas," PR Newswire, Septembe 27, 1993. "DuPont to Continue Producing CFCs in 1995," Chimie Actualities, No. 486, January 20, 1994. "DuPont to Exercise CFC Production Rights," Reuter News Service, December 17, 1993. "DuPont to Make CFC Substitutes at Plant on Texas Coast in 1993," Air/Water Pollution Report, August 23, 1991. "DuPont's $20 Million CFC Alternative," Environment Week, July 6, 1989. "DuPont-Mitsui CFC Manufacturer Tackling Restructuring," Japan Chemical Week, Vol. 35, No. 1785, August 29, 1994. "EC Proposals to Speed Clampdown on Ozone-Eaters Face French Resistance," Environment Watch: Western Europe, June 18, 1993. "EPA Asks DuPont to make CFCs through 1995," Chemical and Engineering News, Vol. 72, No.l 1, February 5, 1994. "Elf Atochem Espana told to cut 1995 CFC Output to 8,800 Tonnes by Spain Govt," AFX News, July 4, 1995. "Elf Atochem Implementing Three Part CFC Phaseout Plan," Ozone Depletion Network Online Today, December 4, 1992. "Elf Atochem in North America: An Eye to the Future," Chemical Engineering, October 1992. "Elf Atochem Increases Forane 141b Capacity," Ozone Depletion Network Online Today, November 3, 1992. "Elf Atochem to set up CFC-substitute gas plant in China venture," AFX News, July 10, 1995. "Environment: India to Sign Montreal Treaty," Inter Press Service, June 4, 1991. "European Union: Decision Establishes 1995 Quotas for Substances that Deplete Ozone Layer," BNA International Environment Daily, May 8, 1995. "FTC to allow Pennwalt buyout if NJ plant is sold," Associated Press, August 1, 1989. "Fear Over China's Use of CFCs," South China Morning Post, July 31, 1993. "Final Rule to Allow Limited Production, Imports of Ozone Depleters in Some Cases, BNA International Daily, May 18, 1995. "Firefighting Chemical Triggers Ozone Alarm," Associated Press, September 2, 1988. "Fondoin to Present New CFC Conversion Projects to World Bank" (Venezuela), Environment Watch: Latin America, June 1993. "France's Atochem Refutes Paleokrassas' Views on HCFC Phaseouts," Ozone Depletion Network Online Today, June 15, 1993. "Future Transitional: Weaning the World of HCFC-22," Global Environmental Change Report, April 24, 1992. "Green Members of Italian Parliament Urge Publication of CFC Production Figures," BNA International Environment Daily, December 10, 1992. "Greenpeace Calls for Australian Government to Halt CFC Production by 1994," Ozone Depletion Network Online Today, November 3, 1992. "Greenpeace Protests DuPont's CFC Production in Canada," Ozone Depletion Network Online Today, April 8, 1992. "HCFC Investors Satisfied with EU's New HCFC Phaseout Deadline," Ozone Depletion Network Online Today, December 15, 1993. "Halogenated CFC Production Stopped by Solvay," Chemical Marketing Reporter, Vol. 245, No. 25, July 15, 1994. "Holes in the Ozone Treaty: Psst-- wanna buy some hot CFCs?," Newsweek, September 25, 1995. Martha Hamilton, "EPA Asks DuPont Co. to Make CFCs in '95; Environmentalists Criticize Agency's Move," Washington Post, December 18, 1993. "Hoechst Abandons Chlorofluorocarbon Production in Germany," Chimie Actualities, No. 500, May 23, 1994. "Hoechst Attacks Commission on Imports of CFCs," European Report, February 22, 1994. "Hoechst Limits HCFC Production," Business and the Environment, September 27, 1991. "Hoechst Shuts Last CFC Unit," Chemical Week, Vol. 154, No. 17, May 21, 1994. "Hoechst to Stop CFC Production mid-1994," Chemical Week, Vol. 153, No. 6, September 18, 1993. Robert Lee Hotz, "Pledges, Paper Promises Make Up Campaign to Protect Ozone Layer," Atlanta Journal, July 14, 1989. ICF Incorporated, "Revised methyl bromide runs," June 25, 1992. "ICI-Teijin Joint Venture to Intensify CFC-Alternative Competition," Japan Chemical Week, Vol. 34, No. 1746, December 5, 1993. "India Bans New Plants Using Ozone Depleting Inputs," Reuter, September 15, 1995. "Israel Identifies Methyl Bromide Reduction Options," Global Environmental Change Report, March 11, 1994. "Israeli factory a major cause of ozone hole: Greenpeace," Agence France-Presse, July 21, 1993. "Italian Company Reduces Emissions, Manufactures CFC-Substitutes," Ozone Depletion Network Online Today, January 27, 1994. "Italy Plans Early Phaseout of HCFCs," Ozone Depletion Network Online Today, October 13, 1993. "Japan: CFC Deliveries Falling; Coolant Use Still High," Japan Chemical Week, July 21, 1994. "Japan eyes profits from coolant alternative," Reuters, August 29, 1989. Yigal Kotzer, "Stop Making Methyl Bromide: Greenpeace," Jerusalem Post, October 31, 1993. Dina Kyriakidou, "Scientists Warn Against Illegal CFC Production," Reuters Ltd., May 19, 1995. Bobby Lamb, "Allied-Signal Plans $100 million plant," Baton Rouge Morning Advocate, January 27, 1993. Brian Love, "Commission Explains Proposal on HCFCs and Methyl Bromide," Reuter News Reports, June 9, 1994. Brian Love, "EC Plan for HCFC Phase-out Stifled, France Blamed," Reuter News Reports, March 18, 1994. "Laroche: CFC Profits Power Growth Program," Chemical Week, December 7, 1994. "MITI Sets 1995 CFC, Triethane Production," Japan Chemical Week, December 28, 1994. "Methyl Bromide," Chemical Marketing Reporter, May 17, 1993. "Methyl Bromide Producers to Overturn Production Ban," Ozone Depleter Compliance Guide, April 1995, page 2. "Network says Japan's CFCs pose threat on global scale," Kyodo News Service, June 6, 1995. Nihon Keizai Shimbun, May 31, 1989 Nikkan Kougyou Shimbun, June 1, 1989. Nippon Kougyou (Newspaper), February 18, 1993. "Not So Fast on Shift Away from Freon Coolant," Atlanta Constitution, December 31, 1995, page S5 (originally appeared in New York Times). "Pennwalt to sell Thorofare plant," Newark Star-Ledger, August 1, 1989. Grady Phelps, "Expectant DuPont Waits on Dawdling Market and Buyers," Corpus Christi Caller Times, January 23, 1994. "Phase one of HCFC (Allied-Signal) plant," ACR Today, September 1994. "Producers Get Set for CFC Phaseout," Chemical Week, November 16, 1994. "Reduction of Ozone-Depleting Substances Reportedly Steady," Japan Chemical Week, July 12, 1995. "Revisions to Montreal Protocol Will [NOT COMPLETE - CONTACT GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL FOR FULL COPY OF REPORT]