Day 011 - 12 Jul 94 - Page 46
1 presumption that hydrogen is part of the formula, as you
might call it?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I believe that it is true that HCFC-22 was originally
labelled as CFC-022 and the second of those figures
4 indicated that a hydrogen atom was present?
A. Yes.
5
Q. So there really was not any need to say HCFC-22; a chemist
6 would understand the chemical structure of that molecule?
A. That is true, but I think I would like to point out
7 that there are two classes of molecules which are actually
used as transitional substances. The others are known as
8 HFCs which contain no chlorine.
9 One reason for introducing HCFC was to make the
distinction between a hydrogen containing molecule which
10 is degradable which contains chlorine and a hydrogen
containing molecule which is degradable which does not
11 contain chlorine. So it was not, in fact, purely because
of the CFCs; it was because, in fact, the entire class of
12 compounds that were being considered had been widened.
13 Q. So the decision was made to rename certain parts, certain
parts of the family, certain of the chemical structure --
14 sorry, I am losing myself a bit -- that previously have
come under the CFC family. Do you think it is true to say
15 that it was only really when CFCs and HCFCs became an
issue that scientists and the industry felt there was a
16 need to add the H so that ordinary people would be able to
distinguish between the two?
17 A. I think I have already given you my reason for why
I think the H was added, which was that in fact once the
18 potential of certain CFCs to destroy ozone, particularly
CFC-11 and CFC-12 became known, then the chemical industry
19 started looking to a whole range of chemicals which did
not just include those containing chlorine. In my view,
20 it was at -- a personal view -- it was at that time the
nomenclature was changed.
21
I would like to make the point that if you look at the
22 documentation that all CFCs do not have the same
destructive potential, and what you have to consider is
23 the ones which are principally used in the world for
plastics production and these were CFC-11 and CFC-12.
24
Q. I accept that the general scientific belief is that have a
25 different destructive potential, but you would accept that
it was really only when this became an issue that there
26 was felt to be a need to relabel CFC-22 as an HCFC? Prior
to that, I mean, the ordinary person in the street would
27 not take much notice of this?
A. The only reason I was hesitating was that the use of
28 the word "belief" implies some sort of estimation which is
very, very sloppy. I would say it was a matter of
29 scientific proof that the reactivity of these chemicals
had a certain -- was of a certain level in that people had
30 actually studied the reactions of these things and it was
on the basis of quantitative measurement of these
