Day 011 - 12 Jul 94 - Page 59
1
Q. Is that because there were concerns about the effects of
2 CFC propellants on the ozone layer?
A. I do not know the reason that Congress chose to ban
3 them at the time.
4 Q. Would it surprise you if that was the reason, as a
scientist? That would have been one of the concerns,
5 would it, at that time?
A. It is possible that is the reason. The reason I am
6 being careful is that the quantification of the possible
problems was not published until 1986 which is when the
7 first World Meteorological Organisation Report came out.
If you notice from the documents that we used today, you
8 can see that even in 1987 people were still putting
caveats as to what the actual chemical effect of certain
9 species was.
10 Q. So were you aware that, for example, environmentalists
were calling for the banning or the phase out of CFCs from
11 well before 1985/86, for example, around the aerosols
issue? Whether they were right or wrong, were you aware
12 that was happening?
A. I was not particularly aware at that stage of the
13 environmental lobby because I was not involved with this
issue until about 1986.
14
Q. Right. At the back of one of the Ozone Protection Group
15 documents it has a list of references?
A. Yes.
16
Q. Do not have to get our papers out but, just for the
17 record, on page 449 there is a document by the Department
of the Environment 1979, Chlorofluorocarbons and their
18 Effect on Stratospheric Ozone, Pollution Paper 15?
A. Yes.
19
Q. Are you aware of that document? Have you ever seen that
20 document?
A. No.
21
Q. If we go back to the Plastiscope document that was served
22 this morning?
A. Yes.
23
Q. If we remember, it is the July 1987 Modern Plastics
24 International?
A. Yes.
25
Q. Some of it was read out by Mr. Rampton but other bits were
26 not. If I can read out the bit and ask you to comment on
it. From the first paragraph onwards:
27
"Pressure in the US Congress and worldwide to limit
28 production of chlorofluorocarbons has intensified,
underscoring the importance of renewed CFC supplier
29 efforts to develop substitute formulations. Among those
affected by growing concern about possible adverse CFC
30 impacts" -- sorry, at this point can we just clarify, "CFC
impacts" would have included at that time CFC-22, is that
