[Search for users]
[Overall Top Noters]
[List of all Conferences]
[Download this site]
| Title: | The Digital way of working |
|
| Moderator: | QUARK::LIONEL ON |
|
| Created: | Fri Feb 14 1986 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 5321 |
| Total number of notes: | 139771 |
568.0. "Digital policy on CFC's/Freon/Ozone layer/Halon" by CSOA1::ROTH (Hey Moe... what's a VAX?) Wed Jul 13 1988 10:56
[Posted without permission. Lee.]
Author: David Barrett
Date: 23-Jun-1988
Posted-date: 23-Jun-1988
DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY
Attached is Digital's company-wide policy statement on CFCs, which has been
approved by Jack Smith, Jack Shields and John Sims (See Attachment A). Also
attached is a set of background materials, (including Q & A) for use in
managing internal and external communications on Digital's CFCs policy. (See
Attachment B)
In countries outside the United States, where there are country, manufacturing
and engineering managers, they will share joint responsibility for internal
and external communications in coordination with area functional managers and
Corporate Public Relations. In the United States, communications will be
managed in accordance with the SARA Title III communication strategy.
* * * * * * * * * * *
In the past two years, scientific evidence increasingly has linked the use of
CFCs with the destruction of ozone in the earth's stratosphere. Stratospheric
ozone acts as a protective layer that shields the earth from the sun's
ultraviolet radiation. Destruction of the ozone layer increases the
likelihood of skin cancer, cataracts, and crop damage.
Industrial and consumer use of CFCs has been increasing worldwide. Major uses
of CFCs include foam-blowing, refrigeration, air conditioning, solvents, and
fire suppression.
Digital has been using CFCs primarily as a solvent in Manufacturing and
Engineering operations because of its unique capability to clean equipment
effectively without leaving any residue. Other Digital uses include cleaning
kits, refrigeration and air conditioning. Digital also uses a chemical cousin
of CFCs, halon, for fire suppression.
Because ozone protection is an international environmental problem, most
industrialized countries have agreed on a common strategy to reduce CFC
usage worldwide. This has taken the form of the Vienna Convention (1985)
and the Montreal Protocol (September 1987). The latter calls for a 20%
reduction in CFCs by 1993 and an additional 30% reduction by 1999, measured
against 1986 levels. Nearly 50 countries have said they will abide by this
treaty and protocol, including Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany,
France, Italy, the United Kingdom (Europe); Canada, Mexico, the United
States (North America); Australia, Japan, New Zealand (Pacific Rim).
Digital takes pride in being a good environmental citizen in all countries
in which it does business. Digital's CFC Policy Statement represents a
company- wide commitment to do everything feasible to achieve an
international solution to the global ozone depletion problem.
Carrying out Digital's CFC policy will require the coordinated efforts of
all affected business groups and the resources of centers of CFC expertise
within the company. Technical aspects, including identification and
testing of promising CFC substitutes, will be the responsibility of
designated technical managers in each major business group affected,
coordinated by a Corporate CFC Task Force. Each of the major business
groups affected -- Manufacturing, Engineering, Field Service, and Property
Management -- are designating senior managers at the corporate and area
levels to take responsibility for managing implementation of the policy.
Questions can be directed as follows:
Media Relations Jeff Gibson -- Corporate Public Relations
DTN 251-1596
Technical Jim Rogers -- Corporate Energy &
Environmental Affairs
DTN 223-3837
Management Implementation David Barrett -- Corporate Environmental,
Health & Safety
DTN 223-6636
15 June 1988 (1)
(Attachment A)
Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) Policy Statement
It is the policy of Digital Equipment Corporation to reduce
immediately, and where possible, to eliminate the company's use of
chlorofluorocarbon products.
This policy addresses current and anticipated environmental regulations
enacted by numerous countries in response to the 1987 Montreal Protocol
for an International CFC Reduction Treaty.
Sufficient evidence now exists that confirms the adverse effects of
CFCs on the earth's protective ozone layer. Emissions of CFCs must be
eliminated as soon as possible.
Manufacturing/Engineering/Product Marketing
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are used in Digital in the manufacturing of
surface mount modules, semiconductor products, circuit boards, storage
systems, thin film products and miscellaneous other products.
Design engineers are responsible for selecting components and
subassemblies that are compatible with non-CFC cleaning and servicing
methods.
Process engineers are responsible for finding alternatives and
substitutes for solvents and other materials containing CFCs. Where
this is not possible, controls must be included in the process for
complete recovery of CFCs.
Equipment purchased by our facilities must include all features and
accessories for reducing CFC losses and emissions.
Field Sales and Service
Products containing CFCs are being used by Field Service and are being
sold to certain of our customers as cleaners for some of our hardware.
Cleaners and other servicing materials containing CFCs will be
eliminated from use and product inventory as soon as possible.
Thereafter, only Non-CFC containing cleaners and other servicing
materials will be used. Variances to this policy require submission to
and approval of the Field Service Environmental, Health and Safety
functions.
15 June 1988 (2)
(Attachment A)
Facilities
To the extent feasible, we will minimize release of halon during
testing of fire suppression systems. We will limit installations of
halon systems to operations that represent significant risk exposures,
and for which, the use of halon is considered the most practical
option. We will seek halon substitutes when they become available. To
the extent feasible, we will further seek low flammability materials
and systems when they become available, with an aim toward making the
use of halon protection systems unnecessary.
Similarly, we will minimize release of CFC refrigerants in air
conditioning equipment, and will research and incorporate substitutes
as they become available.
General
All Digital facilities and operations that use CFCs will monitor their
usage to determine the quantities of CFCs used, how much is
recycled/reclaimed for reuse and how much is emitted to the
environment.
All Digital facilities worldwide are responsible for developing a plan
by Q2 FY89, showing how the facility will comply with this policy. CFC
phase out plans must be updated annually and provided to Corporate
Energy and Environmental Affairs.
15 June 1988 (3)
(Attachment B)
COMMUNICATION PACKAGE FOR CFC POLICY
The attached information has been prepared to assist you in
understanding and communicating our commitment to
phase-out the use of CFCs.
This package includes:
- a summary page explaining the global use of
CFCs (Attachment B-1)
- a summary page explaining Digital's use of
CFCs (Attachment B-2)
- a description of how Digital is working
internally and with other companies to help
resolve this environmental problem (Attachment B-3)
- "Question & Answers" that help put the
problem in perspective (Attachment B-4)
Internal and external communications of this policy should
be handled as follows:
- GIA/Europe - country managers and site
managers will share joint responsibility
for managing communication in coordination
with area functional managers and Corporate
Public Relations
- U.S. - Follow SARA Title III Communication
Strategy
15 June 1988 (4)
(Attachment B-1)
A GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
(CFCS)
o Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) -- a common group of
chemicals (Freon, Genesolve, CFC-11, etc.)
o Worldwide consumption -- 1.3 million tons by almost
400,000 businesses
o Uses -- foam products, refrigerants, fire suppressants,
solvent cleaner
o Properties -- stable, non-toxic and non-flammable
o Recent findings indicate that CFCs are depleting the
protective ozone layer in stratosphere
- Global concern
- Could result in increased skin cancer
o International Agreement (Montreal Protocol) among
29 countries (such as U.K., Germany, Mexico, U.S.)
- Reduce production 50% by the year 1999
- Further reductions by various governments
expected
o Goal -- worldwide phase-out
- Substitutes are under development
- Producers/uses -- working together to
resolve problem
15 June 1988 (5)
(Attachment B-2)
USE OF CFCs WITHIN DIGITAL
o Uses
- Cleaner for electrical components (major)
- Halon -- fire suppressant systems
- Refrigerant in air conditioning systems
o Quantities of cleaner used -- 275 tons per year (rough
estimate)
o Amount released to atmosphere* -- 160 tons per
year (rough estimate)
o Uses within DEC
- Halon and refrigerant systems (all
businesses/facilities)
- Cleaning of electrical parts -- Storage Systems is
largest user; Smaller users include LSI and module
assembly plants.
o DEC is committed to eliminating the use of CFCs (where
possible)
- Seek substitutes
- Alter manufacturing processes to accommodate
substitutes or control releases
o DEC commitment requires
- Worldwide support
- Coordination by designated manager and Corporate CFC
Task Force
*Virtually all these releases are from solvent cleaning
operations(minimal releases from halon and refrigerant systems)
15 June 1988 (6)
(Attachment B-3)
DIGITAL INVOLVEMENT WITH OTHER COMPANIES ON THE CFC ISSUE
For several years Digital has been working with other electronics
companies on the CFC problem. Most of our involvement has been through
the American Electronics Association's (AEA) Environmental Committee
which established a CFC Task Force in 1986. Other companies active on
the task force include IBM, AT&T, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Tektronics,
and Millipore. Jim Rogers of Digital is Chairman of the AEA's CFC task
force.
The task force began by working with the State Department and the
Environmental Protection Agency, in the development of the U.S.
positions which helped to produce the international agreement (Montreal
Protocol).
At the same time, AEA conducted a survey of its member companies to
find out the extent of CFC use and the impact of impending regulations.
Thirty-five companies, both large and small, responded to the survey.
The results were used to develop a "CFC White Paper" which AEA
distributed widely. A report summarizing the survey results and
additional company inputs was prepared for AEA by a consultant in the
Fall of 1987.
After the international agreement was reached in September 1987,
attention was focused on working with EPA on the development of the
U.S. CFC regulations, which were proposed in December 1987.
AEA member companies including Digital were well represented at the CFC
Alternatives Conference in January 1987 in Washington. Sponsored by
EPA and the Conservation Foundation, this conference made it clear that
CFCs are definitely on the way out and users had better find
alternatives.
In the spring of 1988, DuPont announced that it was planning to phase
out production of ozone depleting CFCs completely. A group of European
producers headed by ICI announced a cooperative effort to research and
test alternatives. Most recently, Dow Chemical Co. announced that they
were phasing out the use of CFCs in their products, particularly
Styrofoam products.
Meanwhile, the electronics industry has been pursuing several parallel
efforts to find alternatives. CFC users in the storage systems
business (Digital, IBM, Control Data) have been concentrating their
efforts on reducing emissions from cleaning equipment and installing
emission control equipment. However, the long range objective is to
perfect non CFC cleaning methods. Cleaning systems using deionized
water appear to have the most promise.
15 June 1988 (7)
(Attachment B-3)
The module cleaning part of the electronics business has a tougher job
of finding a suitable alternative to F-113. Solvent cleaning of
circuit board modules was largely eliminated by aqueous cleaning
systems, but the introduction of denser, surface mount modules makes
aqueous cleaning more difficult. AT&T pioneered the Terpene
alternative that received wide publicity and is now being tested by
numerous electronics manufacturers.
Ralph Rondinone, of the Advanced Process Development Group at TWO,
represents Digital on an Electronics Industry/EPA task force which is
focusing on how to speed up the transition to non CFC cleaning methods
in modules manufacturing including SMT.
In the semiconductor industry, the major chip producers (i.e. Intel,
National, TI, Motorola and IBM) are searching for alternatives to CFC
uses in their industry. Several approaches including DI water systems
show promise.
Companies with large installed base (IBM, DEC, HP, etc.) have their
field service organizations looking for non CFC cleaners for servicing
hardware.
Don Crowley and George Russell, in Risk Management, have been working
with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and our insurance
carriers to identify ways of providing adequate fire protection without
using Halon systems.
Finally, there will be a 2-3 day Electronics Industry CFC Alternatives
Conference in January 1989. The various sessions will bring together
in technology transfer sessions the companies and people working on
modules, storage systems, LSI, field services, fire suppression , and
other applications within our industry. There will be additional
conferences in Europe and other international locations.
In the meantime, AEA is encouraging companies with similar CFC
applications to work together on finding and testing alternatives.
This spirit of sharing and cooperation is underway and expected to
continue until CFCs are no longer an issue.
For additional information on electronics industry efforts to phase out
CFCs, contact Jim Rogers in Corporate Energy and Environmental Affairs
at DTN#223-3837, MEMIT::JROGERS, or Jim Rogers @MLO.
15 June 1988 (8)
(Attachment B-4)
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
PUTTING THE CFC ISSUE IN PERSPECTIVE
1. What are CFCs?
CFCs stand for chlorofluorocarbons. They are man-made chemicals
consisting of chlorine, fluorine, and carbon.
2. Are there other names for CFCs?
Yes. Sometimes they are referred to by trade names such as Freon or
Genesolve. They may also be referred to as CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113,
CFC-114, CFC-115, CFC-500 or CFC-502.
3. What are they used for?
They are used widely in the refrigeration industry as refrigerant
gases. For example, they are used as the cooling source in most
refrigerators, residential air conditioning units, and automobiles.
Besides refrigeration, they are widely used in the production of foam
products such as furniture padding, insulation, foam cups and plates.
CFCs are also extensively used as industrial solvents to clean
thousands of products, including electronic components.
4. What is the total quantity of CFCs produced annually in the world?
Approximately 1.3 million tons.
5. Are CFCs toxic?
No. Based on existing scientific information, CFCs are among the
safest group of industrial chemicals. The levels encountered in
manufacturing and cleaning operations have not resulted in adverse
effects to employees.
6. Are they flammable?
No. In fact, a related material called halon is widely used as a
fire suppressant throughout the world in industrial facilities,
aircraft, and computer rooms.
7. If CFCs are non-toxic and non-flammable, what is all the controversy
about?
Although CFCs have been studied for many years, recent evidence
appears conclusive that these materials react in the upper atmosphere
to destroy the protective layer of ozone. Let me explain. The layer
of the atmosphere approximately twenty miles above the earth is
referred to as the stratosphere. It consists of a naturally
occurring gas called ozone. This chemical is important since it
absorbs much of the ultra-violet light from the sun. Apparently,
15 June 1988 (9)
(Attachment B-4)
CFCs react with ozone molecules and destroy this protective layer.
As a result, more ultraviolet light may eventually reach the earth,
which could result in an increased incidence of skin cancer among
humans.
8. Has this relationship been proven?
Yes. Recent flights through the stratosphere have documented a two
or three percent loss in the protective ozone layer. Furthermore,
although depletion of ozone was first observed only in Antarctica, it
has now been documented to be occurring in other parts of the world.
9. What is the answer to this environmental problem?
The solution is fairly obvious. The world must reduce dramatically
its emission of CFCs and other substances that deplete ozone in the
stratosphere.
10. Is this really a global issue?
Yes.
11. What are the chances that the industrialized countries of the world
can reach an agreement on CFC reduction?
Very good. In fact, an agreement has already been reached by 29
countries that would reduce production 50% by the year 1999. The
countries include:
Africa Europe North America Pacific Rim
Egypt Belgium Canada Australia
Ghana Denmark Mexico Japan
Kenya EEC Panama New Zealand
Senegal Federal Republic United States
Togo of Germany Venezuela
Finland
France
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Sweden
Switzerland
U.K.
15 June 1988 (10)
(Attachment B-4)
12. Is a 50% global reduction adequate to protect the ozone layer?
It may not be. Various countries, including the U.S., are currently
looking at whether additional reductions will be required to solve
the ozone depletion problem.
13. How many businesses use CFCs?
The five U.S. companies that manufacture CFCs sell to about 5,000
direct customers who in turn distribute the products to almost
375,000 business locations using CFCs.
14. Is Digital a major user of CFCs?
Yes. We are among the 375,000 businesses using CFCs, for example in
the refrigeration units that cool our buildings. We also use halon
fire suppression systems. However, our major use of CFCs is to clean
electronic components.
15. How much CFCs do we use worldwide?
Unfortunately, we do not yet know precisely our total use. We
estimate that we use approximately 275 tons a year to clean
electronic parts. This represents a fraction of 1% of the worldwide
production of CFCs (i.e., the 275 tons represent .02% of the total
worldwide production of CFCs).
16. Since we use approximately 275 tons of CFCs in cleaning our parts,
does this represent a large percent of the total amount of CFCs used
worldwide for parts cleaning?
Data is not available on CFC usage worldwide for parts cleaning.
However, the U.S. total CFC usage for parts cleaning is 68,000 tons.
Digital's 275 tons represent 0.34% of the U.S. parts cleaning usage.
17. Of the 275 tons of CFCs that we use annually to clean parts, how much
is released into the atmosphere?
Our best estimate is that Digital is releasing approximately 160 tons
associated with our cleaning operations. Most of Digital's CFC
releases are coming from Digital's United States facilities. We do
not yet have accurate release amounts from all of our GIA and
European facilities because surveys have not been completed.
18. Does Digital's release of 160 tons per year represent a significant
portion of the total amount of CFCs released worldwide into the
atmosphere?
Accurate data on worldwide emissions is not currently available.
However, our emissions represent about 0.012% of worldwide production
of CFC's.
15 June 1988 (11)
(Attachment B-4)
19. Describe typical household uses of CFCs.
Typical uses include auto and home air conditioning and foam-plastic
food containers. Furthermore, most tape head cleaners for VCRs also
contain CFCs. In addition, CFCs are still used in aerosols in Europe
and other parts of the world [uses include hairspray, deodorants,
spray paints, carpet cleaners, etc.]
20. Is Digital committed to reducing its use and release of CFCs?
Yes. Our senior management has adopted a corporate-wide policy aimed
at reducing immediately and where possible, eliminating the company's
use of CFC products. Design Engineers are being requested to select
components and sub-assemblies that are compatible with non-CFC
cleaning and servicing methods. Process Engineers are responsible
for finding suitable substitutes. In addition, equipment purchased
by our facilities must include features and accessories for reducing
CFC losses and emissions. Field Service is being asked to reduce
their use of CFCs in servicing our customers. Property Development
is being asked to reduce our losses of CFCs from refrigeration units
and from halon fire suppression systems.
21. Did we just initiate these efforts at eliminating CFCs?
No. We have been monitoring the CFC issue for a number of years.
Currently, most of our major users of CFCs have engineering studies
of alternatives underway. In some cases we are hoping to use aqueous
cleaning systems in the place of CFCs. In other cases, we have plans
to install environmental control equipment to prevent the CFCs from
escaping into the atmosphere.
22. Are other companies and industries following suit?
Yes. Dupont, which is the largest producer of CFCs has announced
that it will get completely out of the business within fifteen years
if not sooner. In the meantime, Dupont and many other chemical
companies are developing and testing safer substitutes. However, due
to extensive safety testing that must be conducted, the development
of some substitutes is estimated by some observers to be a process
that may take up to seven years.
23. Does this mean that we can't eliminate most of the emissions of CFCs
in the next five years?
We believe that industry, as a whole, is moving rapidly in response
to this global environmental problem. Much can be done now in
preventing CFCs from escaping into the atmosphere by using control
equipment and by following good housekeeping measures. However,
proving the safety of CFC substitutes means that these changes will
take time.
15 June 1988 (12)
(Attachment B-4)
24. What is the electronic industry doing?
In the United States, the electronics industry, working through the
American Electronics Association (AEA) and the Semiconductor Industry
Association (SIA), has been working on this problem for several
years. AEA worked with the U.S. EPA and the U.S. State Department
prior to the Montreal Protocol, and is now working with the U.S. EPA
on regulations to implement the phase-out. Next year there will be
an electronics industry CFC Alternatives Conference co-sponsored by
AEA and EPA. Many electronics companies are sharing knowledge about
substitutes and techniques to reduce CFC emissions. Digital has been
a leader in these electronics industry efforts.
In Canada, Europe and the Pacific Rim Countries, major CFC
conferences are scheduled for 1988 or are being planned for 1989.
Again, the electronics industries in these countries are playing a
role in developing technical solutions.
25. What countries have enacted laws or regulations limiting uses and
releases of CFCs?
Canada and the United States have already enacted regulations
requiring CFC users to inventory and report their CFC uses. West
Germany enacted regulations in 1986 that specifically limit CFC
emissions from certain kinds of CFC uses. Other industrialized
countries including the remaining European community nations, Japan,
Australia and New Zealand are expected to issue CFC regulations
before January 1, 1989.
26. Is there a connection between the new U.S. Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (SARA Title III Program) and the CFC
issue?
Yes. The new Emergency Response and Community Right-to-Know Law has
a provision that requires large industrial users of certain toxic
chemicals to report their total losses to the environment on an
annual basis. Although CFCs are not considered to be toxic from a
health standpoint, they were one of the chemicals included in the
SARA Title III Program requirement.
27. Does this mean we will be reporting our CFC releases?
By July 1, 1988, all U.S. companies must report their 1987 annual
releases of CFCs into the environment from their U.S. facilities
where total use of CFCs was at least 10,000 pounds in 1987.
28. To whom will the data be reported?
The data will be reported to the U.S. EPA and state agencies.
15 June 1988 (13)
(Attachment B-4)
29. Will it be made public?
The intent of Congress is for EPA to put this data in a computerized
database that would be accessible to every citizen with a terminal
and a modem. Although EPA's computer program is not yet ready, the
agency can be expected to take reasonable measures to ensure that the
data is accessible to the public.
30. Is it likely that national or international environmental groups will
be interested in the U.S. CFC data?
Yes. We fully expect various groups to obtain, analyze and publicize
the data.
31. Will our local U.S. facilities that release CFCs be susceptible to
possible publicity?
It is likely that facilities with large releases could expect some
publicity.
32. How should the U.S. facilities respond to inquiries?
In the U.S., we will follow the SARA Title III communication plan
that was developed earlier this year by a corporate committee. The
communication plan involves assuring good communication to our
employees, the community and the media. The Corporate Public
Relations organization and the Corporate Employee Relations
organization are currently holding training sessions on how to manage
the communication aspects of all the SARA submittals, including
reporting data on CFC releases.
33. Is Digital a responsible company in using and emitting to the air
such large quantities of CFCs?
Although CFCs are expensive, they have been a preferred cleaning
agent, because of an excellent safety track record and their
effectiveness as an electronic parts cleaner. When scientists
discovered the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer, we began to move
rapidly at finding substitutes and reducing our releases.
34. Are we currently breaking the law by releasing large quantities of
CFCs?
No. Our CFC usage and operations are in compliance both with the
laws of each country in Europe and GIA in which we operate and with
applicable U.S. federal and state laws.
15 June 1988 (14)
(Attachment B-4)
35. How quickly will Digital be able to significantly reduce its use and
releases of CFCs?
Some uses are being phased out right now. For example, deionized
water is being substituted in some cleaning applications. Others
will take several years to completely eliminate. In the meantime,
ways of reducing emissions will be utilized where possible.
36. Will we be able to replace CFCs in our refrigeration units?
The refrigeration industry has studies underway to find replacements
for CFCs in refrigerant applications. There is little that we can do
to speed-up this process. However, we can make every effort to
minimize any releases of CFCs from our refrigeration units,
especially during servicing.
37. What about halon? Are we trying to eliminate it?
Again, United States and International groups including the National
Fire Prevention Association, are attempting to find substitutes for
halon. We support this effort. We will be attempting to eliminate
any unnecessary losses of halon from our fire suppressant systems.
In addition, we will limit new installations of halon systems to
those applications where the product is absolutely essential from a
fire prevention or employee safety standpoint.
Distribution List:
JOE CARRERA @IND,
JOHN BEIRNE @VRO,
DOUG CARPENTER @LJO,
CONLON@MSBIS2@VAXMAIL,
MANNY DIAS @VRO,
GEOFF LOMAS @UTO,
PAUL LAKIN @MEL,
ROGER MOORE @GEO,
DAN NUSSDORFER @WOO,
RUSS PITTENGER @VRO,
KEN SEXTON @AKO,
ELLEN SMITH @AKO,
BOB TOBIAS @VRO,
WANDA COX @CFO,
KENNETH C WHITE @MKO,
BEL CROSS @VRO,
DAN INFANTE @MLO,
GINNY COVINO @AKO,
JIM HOGAN @AKO,
KEN GORDON @VRO,
LANA LEE @VRO,
MARK SIGMAN @CFO,
MARTY SACK @VRO,
MICHAEL APPLEBEE @CFO,
MIKE CONNOR @VRO,
PAT GILLOGLY @CHM,
PETER BROWN @VRO,
ROGER BEDARD @VRO,
SERGIO GIACOLETTO @GEO,
SUZEE WOODS @VRO,
DAN CORSETTI @PKO,
LARRY WELLINGTON @WJO,
SUKIEL@RUTLND@VMSMAIL,
NORMAN SHAKESPEARE @VRO,
KEN PATTERSON @VRO,
GIL DUNN @PKO,
BOB ASHTON @MKO,
DON TOMKINSON @MRO
JIM ROGERS @MLO
Distribution:
Use the RDL option to see distribution list.
| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 568.1 | what about non-obvious uses? | VAXRT::WILLIAMS | | Wed Jul 13 1988 16:06 | 7 |
| What's the CFC connection with all the plastic plates and trays
used once in the ML cafe and then thrown away?
Will this policy bring back either washable utensils and plates
and trays or replace them with paper and cardboard?
/s/ Jim WIlliams
|
| 568.2 | Perhaps no connection at all | DR::BLINN | Opus for VEEP in '88 | Wed Jul 13 1988 16:42 | 12 |
| If I'm not mistaken, the cafeteria is run by Tobins or one
of the other cafeteria contractors. Why don't you get a paper
copy of the memo (preferably through "official" channels, not
by extracting it from this conference) and discuss it with
the cafeteria management?
I think you may find out that there's no CFC connection with
the plastic plates, trays, and utensils. However, there are
other reasons to prefer that these items either be reusable
(after washing) or at least biodegradable.
Tom
|
| 568.3 | CFC's in air conditioning | PLDVAX::MORRISON | Bob M. LMO2/P41 296-5357 | Fri Jul 15 1988 18:45 | 12 |
| I don't have time to read a 700-page memo, but I know two of the major CFC
users in DEC are the solvent tanks used in module mfg etc. and the air cond.
units. I read somewhere that DEC is planning to reduce the use of CFC's in
computer rooms, but it didn't say how. I don't see a quick fix for this one.
Even if we design computers to run at 90 F, which is possible, what about the
non-DEC peripherals that are connected to our machines? And what about the peo-
ple who have to work in computer rooms?
Actually the main environmental hazard of CFC's used in all heat transfer
equipment is not with normal operation, but if the freon piping springs a leak
or if old units are disposed of without having the freon recovered. I wouldn't
want DEC to incur a great expense or make its workplaces uncomfortable so we
can say we are doing something to save the ozone layer.
|
| 568.4 | | ANT::MORRISON | Bob M. LMO2/P41 296-5357 | Thu Jul 28 1988 19:56 | 7 |
| I took the time to read the memo; it was quicker than I expected because
there are only about 400 lines of text. There is no mention of raising the
thermostats in air conditioned areas. Actually the main source of CFC's in
computer rooms is not the air conditioning, but the Halon fire suppression
systems. On the rare occasions where they are tested or are set off, they
release a lot of CFC's.
|
| 568.5 | | EAGLE1::BEST | R D Best, sys arch, I/O | Fri Apr 28 1989 17:06 | 11 |
| >There is no mention of raising the thermostats in air conditioned areas.
I don't think raising or lowering the thermostat would have any impact on
CFC emissions. As you mention next, the leakage rate from various
refrigerating units (A/C and other cooling boxes) and occasional check
releases from fire systems are the critical factors.
Another source that should be plugged is vehicle A/C. As I understand it,
we have a fleet of trucks. If we are not already doing so, it might be wise
to start using (or getting repair vendors to use) repair procedures that
recapture Freon refrigerant from A/C.
|
| 568.6 | California takes steps on ozone | LAIDBK::PFLUEGER | Surfing the catastrophe curve of absurdity | Thu May 04 1989 15:18 | 17 |
| Re: < Note 568.5 by EAGLE1::BEST "R D Best, sys arch, I/O" >
> Another source that should be plugged is vehicle A/C. As I
> understand it, we have a fleet of trucks. If we are not already
> doing so, it might be wise to start using (or getting repair vendors
> to use) repair procedures that recapture Freon refrigerant from A/C.
As an aside, in California next year, a new air pollution law will
go into effect that states that you have to have a device that
recaptures escaping Freon from vehicle A/C when recharging the system.
A license will be required from the state to perform the operation,
thus preventing the average car owner from servicing his A/C anymore.
There are also some changes about disposal of automotive oil, but
that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand...
Jp
|
| 568.7 | they'll "new law" us to death | WR2FOR::BOUCHARD_KE | Ken Bouchard WRO3-2/T7 | Thu May 04 1989 19:49 | 10 |
| .6� As an aside, in California next year, a new air pollution law will
.6� go into effect that states that you have to have a device that
.6� recaptures escaping Freon from vehicle A/C when recharging the system.
.6� A license will be required from the state to perform the operation,
.6� thus preventing the average car owner from servicing his A/C anymore.
Does that mean I can't buy a can of freon at Cal-Auto and recharge
my own A/C? Will auto stores even be allowed to sell freon? Think
I'll buy a couple cans now while I can.Bet the state will have a
helluva time enforcing *that*!
|
| 568.8 | Without the new law, we may do ourselves to death | DELNI::JONG | Steve Jong/NaC Pubs | Fri May 05 1989 16:40 | 1 |
|
|
| 568.9 | Calif Gov'm at its best | LAIDBK::PFLUEGER | Surfing the catastrophe curve of absurdity | Fri May 05 1989 19:56 | 17 |
| Re: Ken (.7)
Yep, that's right!
I'm not sure when the law goes into effect, but I heard it on the
radio (and think I saw mention of it in the AAA monthly rag..).
Supposedly, there will be heavy fines for violators.
In fact, the California Air Resource Board (CARB - appropriate, eh?)
"set down" alot of _bizarre_ rules in their last report (e.g., no
usage of charcoal lighter fluid to start your BBQ! [so now every
one will use gasoline-right?]).
But I digress from the scope of this conference (hee, hee, beat
Tom to it!). Perhaps we should raise this in SRFSUP::LA_STUFF ??
Jp
|
| 568.10 | Let my Ozone go!! | CGOA01::DTHOMPSON | | Sun May 07 1989 16:56 | 13 |
| Wouldn't it be better just to make everyone who is working on air
conditioning/refrigeration systems do so while running unfiltered
LN03s? If we had a really strong lobbyist, we could probably get
a law like that implemented.
More seriously, can anyone tell me why laser-generated ozone is
considered so evil when...
a) We're supposedly running out of the stuff higher up? and
b) Electric motors (and generators) have been making it for
years and no-one seems to mind?
Don
|
| 568.11 | Nearer to home | EVETPU::WALSH | Waiting for the Galactic Bus | Mon May 08 1989 17:25 | 13 |
| re: .-1
Ozone higher up is fine. It blocks UV, and and there isn't anyone
around to breathe it. That's where there's a problem, and that's why
we don't want it around in the workplace.
re: freon and recharging A/Cs
Massachusetts is considering a bill like California's. A friend of
mine who runs a body shop is delaying going into the A/C repair
business until the he knows what the law is going to require...
- Chris
|