Document 3JbBoyNNNojR58gaJLD7gq3kO

Mrnjjuto TO v.1. R. Richard - Research Center January 11, 1971 AROCLOR - MCS 1016 R. E. Keller R. M. Kountz J. R. Savage H. Munch/E. S. Tucker 1 received another letter from A1 Posefsky reiterating his con cern on 1) biodegradability of MCS 1016 (he wants rate data) and 2) keeping the U.L. rating and fire resistance. Ralph told me that in order to restore the full Aroclor 1242 chlorine content we would have to cut into 17^ of the product eliminating some of the 2,4-dlchlorobiphenyl, which we don't want to do. It seems we should try to make the best of the situation; calcu late a position which restores part of the .chlorine level and which makes economic sense. We showed some reasonable fire re sistance in isomerlzed Aroclor 1239 and 124o in trying to reach a new transformer fluid in the work done by Jim Sullivan. I believe It was MCS 717 and MCS 762. Maybe we should just take a look at the fire resistance of MCS 1016; do some experimental work on MCS 1016 vs. a "party restored Cl fluid 1240" vs. Aroclor 1242. The biodegradation rate has to be clarified in our own minds and in the eyes of the industry. I think this has to be put in the context of what Isomers are degrading in: rats fish chickens cow's milk river water activated sludge Ca cultures and which Isomers are not degrading, even though the rates are low. MCS 1016 needs to be put in this context. We also need to give some indication of at least Ca culture rate data with and without biphenyl. Light degradation - ThlB information from Bloomfield needs to be brought together. M0NS 098591 2 Will Ralph please lead the reevaluation of the chlorine and FR level and will Scott and Ralph put the story together on biodegradation. Thanks. tul2-, W. R. Richard /is MONS 098591