Day 060 - 02 Dec 94 - Page 21


     
     1
     2   Q.   Right.  If you turn over to Mr. Langert's statement, which
     3        is in tab 2 just behind, if you keep that page open because
     4        we are probably going to go back to it, the bottom page,
     5        the page number at the bottom, turn to page 19?
     6        A.  Yes.
     7
     8   Q.   Mr. Langert says at paragraph 7:   "In 1985 and 1986 a
     9        number of scientific studies were published identifying the
    10        potential environmental problems which resulted from the
    11        use of CFCs"?
    12        A.  Yes.
    13
    14   Q.   So somebody else in your company appears to think there was
    15        concern at that time?
    16        A.  That is not what it says.  It says, "a number of
    17        scientific studies were published".  If I remember rightly,
    18        at that time in the USA and Canada, I think, the concern
    19        was over the use of CFCs in aerosol sprays.
    20
    21   Q.   The concern was about damage to the ozone layer by CFCs,
    22        was it not?
    23        A.  Yes.
    24
    25   Q.   So where you said in your statement that there was no
    26        concern in 1986, that is wrong, is it not?
    27        A.  I do not think so.  As far as we were concerned, there
    28        was no concern.  I think, generally, the use of CFCs in
    29        aerosol sprays had been an issue in the United States
    30        pre-1986, much earlier, in fact, but not in foam packaging,
    31        as far as I am aware.
    32
    33   MR. MORRIS:  You read the material that was disclosed yesterday
    34        on the ozone -- The 15-year Evolution of a Sudden Global
    35        Emergency, Ozone Crisis; this was given to us by Greenpeace
    36        UK?
    37        A.  Right.
    38
    39   Q.   The first item on that page disclosed -- I do not have the
    40        full report; I only have this chronological extract.  When
    41        you say there was no concern about the environmental impact
    42        of CFCs in your statement at that time, when you said you
    43        were concerned about the issue yourself, you became
    44        concerned later about the issue?
    45        A.  Yes.
    46
    47   Q.   So you looked into the whole CFC issue?
    48        A.  Yes.
    49
    50   Q.   You personally supervised the decision to phase it out? 
    51        A.  Yes. 
    52 
    53   Q.   So you have obviously looked into the history, did you not,
    54        of the CFC controversy?
    55        A.  No.
    56
    57   Q.   You did not?
    58        A.  No.  I read ----
    59
    60   Q.   So, when you say -- sorry, please finish.

Prev Next Index