- 23 -
regard, petitioner contends that he "scrutinized the market for
availability of machinery that could [recycle] polystyrene,
looked at equipment that was available, [and] came to the
informed conclusion that there was no machine available that
could do what John Bambara convinced me his machine could do."
Petitioner contends further that he observed the Japan Repro
recycler in operation and concluded that the machine did not
successfully recycle expanded polystyrene in that it densified,
but did not completely devolatize, expanded polystyrene, so that
the recycled product did not have the physical properties of
polystyrene that he needed in order to make a "commercially
acceptable product."
Although petitioner allegedly researched other, less
expensive recycling machinery manufactured by Nelmor Co.,
Cumberland Engineering, and Foremost Machine Builders, Inc.,
petitioner was unable to recall the names and models of the
equipment that he researched, but contends that, in 1982, he was
not aware of any machinery manufactured by these companies that
could recycle expanded polystyrene.
As with expanded polyethylene, petitioner contends that he
determined that the effect of rising oil prices on the plastics
industry would make recycled expanded polystyrene a valuable
commodity. In this regard, petitioner contends that he made
financial projections in order to determine the annual cash flow
that he could expect from a Sentinel EPS recycler. From these
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011