Document 5kvrwK74Vbzzp4Vq93ERBBN75

VK^o^a Monsanto fr* ** too n *.*# it i**.uii*" iw* D U tM -tO O O August. 39, 19Bt Dr. Raymond R- Suskind Institute of Environmental JJealLh ^--vr'- Kettering Laboratory ' 3223 Eden Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 43267 y': *'*;. : : Dear R a y : ..... V. '*" In response to your request, 'I *a providing you with the following information a* to levels of ^dioxin" in the 2,4,5-T Monsanto manufactured at ita Hitro, V e s t Virginia plant- As you know,'-the chemical -2,4,5-T .is the subject of certain litigation including Agent Orange and the suits brought by a nunber of former and ' - current Hitro employees', so this information should be treated sensitively, f T--- ,.x .... - The information ve have is sparse-. Ve have no information as to. the 1evelc-of -dioxin -which joay_havc^been -present in the materials emitted in the 1949 process accident. Similarly, we h*ve no information on dioxin levels in the 2,4,5-T produced from 1947-1959. Bcginning in 196S, Monsanto obtained the capability, crude and non-specific by today's standards, to conduct analyses for dioxin. However, that technology could separate out the 2,3,7,B tetrachloro isomer, or even the Tv-UD's. Accordingly, the dioxin data generated in the testing ef 2,4,5-T samples probably constitute for each sample .a gross measure of a mix of dioxin isomers and differing chlorine content measured as one. .. % Uaing the limited technology obtained, Monsanto in 1965 analyzed six or seven still-avail able samples of 2,4,5-T it had manufactured during the period 1959-1965. While the testing of samples of 2,4,5-T manufactured during the period 1965-1969 was more extensive, the samples were not collected on any sort. of. regular, periodic basis. Thus, for that period we do not have a sample from each batch, or iron each day's production, or anything of that nature. Rather, samples were tested on an irregular basis with no discernible pattern.  * iri'r" , ^ --**. - ... -. . i '' ; r; - -r;:: D r . . "Rayis ond R- Sue k in d August 29, 2932 In Addition t o the foregoing. Any effort to draw conclusions about tlie levels of dioxin to which Monsanto employees at Mii.ro ay have been exposed must Lake into account at least two ether factors: (1> Monsanto made numeroul changes in its 2,4,S-T Vj._Manufacturing process, with the result that, :i *in general in the id and late 2 9&0*s as Monsanto*s production of 2,4,5-T increased, the level of.dioxin incite product declined; and Intervals, Nonsanto made major changes ' of equipment and operation nodes *'~` v * :vemployed J.n its production of 2,4,5-T, thereby ; significantly reducing employee exposure to any *. - ^ . ' v 4 - * * - --- -A,* * - **W ? 1' < - ; .* \-.;GR/ln< ';*'v*bcc ` R. T. Serendt - E2ND !- . George Roush, Jr., M. D. Director, Xept. of Medicine and Environmental Health