Document 7RNOoO6KXryYpNzdwa4XgVRx8

Monsanto' roM (w*mc * iocatian i oatc wa^ccr trciCNCi TO N. T. Johnson St. Louis February 16, 1970 POLLUTION LETTER P. Craska - Wilmington C. Clay - St. Louis / J. PI. Davidson - Los Angeles R.A. Damiani - Chicago / G.F. Fague - Detroit / R.A. Garcia - Akron / R. Garnsworthy - Melbourne J. A.-.Heilala - Akron R. Irwin - Houston.' . J. S. Pullman - New York J. J. Roder - Chicago R. Giles - Melbourne P. J.A. Marsh - Brussels R. Enrhardt - New York T. W. Oneson - Montreal J. N. Haggart - Brussels V. Morse - St. Louis J. Brydon - Montreal R. Graham - New York P. G. Benignus J. G. Bryant D. E. Roush (J, R. r alLiorp D. A. Hall D. R. Pogue . D. F. Smith D. A. Olson / w.*e pm*. . . . Attached is a list of questions and answers which may be asked of you by customers receiving our Aroclor-PCB letter. You can give : verbal answers; no answers should be given in writing. If the ; customer asks a question you can't answer or if he wants an \/ answer in writing, then send hie questions to me and we will . answer from here. : We want to avoid any situation where a customer wants to return fluid. The new reformulated products will be available within a month. We would prefer that the customer use up his current /inventory and purchase Pydraul 625A, Pydraul ACA, Pydraul ADA Winter Grade and Pydraul 540A when available. He will then top off with the new fluid and eventually all Arodor 1254 and Aroclor 1260 will be out ox his system. We don't want to take fluid back. Sell him the replacement. ' We must be very positive in our approach with each customer ' relative to our decision to eliminate the use of Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1260 in our Pydraul products. We (your customer and Monsanto) are not interested in using a product which may present a problem to our environment. We certainly have no reason to be defensive or apologetic about making this change. The decision to change makes good sense and our customers should commend us, not criticize our actions. No at e has forced us to make this / /' PLAINTIFFS exhibit M: I HARTOLDMONO015072 2 change. "We have done it to keep our customers out of possible trouble. They should appreciate our effort, and stay with us as a customer on the. reformulated Fydrauls. To make this change has cost us research monies and time. Fortunately, we possess the technical skills to make a change in our formulations without affecting the performance of products. Be positive. Take the offense. Don't let a customer or competitor intimidate you. 1 doubt if our competitors know whether their product could present a problem to our environment. You might ask your customer, if he has ever asked Houghton or Stauffer, Carbine, etc. about the effects of their products. We should also recognize (point this out to your customer) we ' must clean-up. The Chemical Week article gives him an idea ' of laws in effect in his state. Read this yourself. Be familiar with the data on each state in which your customers are located. Use this in your discussions. ' ' ;" ' ' ' We have no replacement products for Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1260._` =* .. We will continue to make these products; however, customers . will have to use their own judgement on continued use. We can't afford to lose one dollar of business. Our .attitude in discussing this subject with our customer will be the deciding factor in our success or failure in retaining all our present business. Good luck. .' (We have also attached a copy of the letter sent to transformer customers. ) . / . ,' / ' .. / N. T. Johnson HARTOLDMONO015073 1 POSSIBLE CUSTOMER QUESTIONS ON PCBa PUBLICITY Question I What article* have appeared a the PCB problem? Will you send mo copiea? ' Answer; In the U.S. a newspaper articles hove appeared In the San franclsco Chronicle en PeK 14, 1944, the San Francisco Examiner on Feb. 25, 1969, and the Hartford Time a on Auc. 3. 1969. Numerous article a were gen* rated by the Wiaconain "DOT Hearing*" in May, 1969, At the hearing*, witae**** diacuaaed the problem of PCS* aa "interfering substance*" in their search for DDT in the environment. PCBa, they said, produced peak* on a ga* chromatograph similar to the peak* produced by DDT. la ao caae waa PCB indicted at the. Wiaconain hearing*. Copie a of the article* will bo mad* available oa reque at. Regional manager* should contacts.V. John, Public Relations Manager Organic Chemical* Division, in St. Louis and copies will be for * ' warded to the customer through the regional manager's office. In addition to the newspaper article a mentioned above, there have been radio broadcasts. At the timo of the San Francl*co Chronicle and Examiner article*, radio* in the San Franetaeo area also carried tho story, la August, the sports editor p{ the Hanford Times syndicated a radio broadcast on the subject of PC Be, and in Dec., 1969, the Canadian Broadcasting Co. (radio) carried an interview they taped with a member of our Radical department. Question 2 Ware Monsnato's Aroclors specifically mentioned in these article#? If so, which ones ? ' . ' / / MOhS 0*1940 HARTOLDMONO015074 Anawer 2 Mon* an to1 a Aroclor* ware mentioned in lemi of the Article* but only in the Son Franciaco Chronicle *tory in Feb,, 1969, w** Aroclor 1262 apecifically mentioned by number. In *evoral of the rtielee, Moneento we* el*o identified a* the *ole U. S. producer of polychlorinated biphenylt, marketed under the tradename of Aroclor. Quoation 3 What did the article* on the PCS problem aay? Anwcr Since the outaet of the "PCS problem", when the firat article appeared in tho U. S. pre* in Feb., 1969, the whole quoation hae been elorely interwoven with tho queetion of DOT a* a poaaible environmental contaminant. The San Franci*co Chronicle article carried a he adline, "A Menacing New Pollutant. 11 In rather **a*ational atyle, it identified PCS a* a threat to bird* and humane, highly tonic in a ga*eoue *tate and related to known canear-eauaer*. PCS presence in the environment ie rielag awiftly, the article etated. The examiner article called PCS a "plaatie pollutant in the Say and Mother*1 Milk. " Thi* article called PCS an "alarming" new chemical pollutant that ie playing a role in the declining peregrin* falcon population, hae Un found in mother*' milk, and ia tho "latet addition to a growing liet of chemical* in the ocean*--* the neweat tymptom of man1* chemical invaaion of the ocean. " The*# two article* quoted Or. Robert Riaebrough, a reaearcher . at the Inatitate of Marina Raeourca* in tho Univoraity of California'* Departmaat of Nutritional Scientiata, on the detrimental effect* of PCS*. Later Dr. Riaebrough a aid he had been miaquoted in aema nowapaper atoriea. The Hartford Time* atory called PCS pollution a "new punlc." Leaa aenaational than the.San Franciaco article*, the Time a gave ah account of PCS* being found in the environment and tho aludio* under way to determine their biological affect*. Thia articla, aaya Or. Riaebrough, tend* to clear PCB of blame. RONS 0*1941 HARTOLDMONO015075 1 Article* (intriud by the Wisconsin DOT hearings generally discussed PCB as an interfering Subitancs discovered in scientist*1 arch for DOT la tho environment. Dr. Risebrough raid at tha hearings that there Wu no proof at tha tnomant that PCS alone caa eauM thin eggshells, one of tha phaBamaaoa that ha had discovered ia studying tha declining population of tha peregrine falcon. LXCSLATION Question l Are thoro aay Fedoral/State/local law* under which tho use or dir charge of Aroclora could bo prohibited? - Answer; . No existing Federal. State, or local laws prohibit tha dlacharga of Aroclora, However, la a number of state a tha basic water pollution control legislation is so broad that state agencies caa prohibit chemicals, deemed necessary, from being discharged. Qua s don 2 ; Is tha DOT and tha PCB problem related? Answerj ' Wo aro not a manufacturer of DOT or othor chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticldo and, therefore, have no knowledge of tho seriousness of tho charges agaiast OOT other than what has teen so widely publicised on TV, ia the press and ia technical Journals. To the axiom that both DOT and PCB are chlorinated hydrocarbons, then there is a similarity. They are sufficiently different in their chemical structures , however, that it would be entirely wrong to aesume that both behave ia the came way in the environment. There is another and more obvioua difference. DOT and other chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides were specifically designed for a job that obviously lead* to their being scattered in wide spread fashion across the countryside. Rate, birds, wind, insects further scatter these pesticides in an uncontrollable manner. PCBs are net used la this fashion and MOMS 0*1942 / / HARTOLDMONOOI5076 4 Monsanto hit never sought to promote thit. This, we believe, i$ in important ditunction that should not be overlooked if POT tad PCS trt linked *t t common pollutant of tho environment. To our knowledge PCS* have aever boon identified in tho tbtoneo of DPT or othor chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides. Quottfan 1 Could It bo PCS that's cout log tho environmental problomt and not SOT? Answer; Wo bellovo that proooafday G1C and matt tpoctromotrie techniques are sufficiently occuram to be able to differentiate between DOT. related pesticides, their metabolites and PCS. ' Question 4 What authority do State and local governments have in banning/ controlling the use of PCSs. Answo r: They do havo authority to ban or eontrol use of any substances they confide r harmful. EmUENT AND ITS CONTROL Question 1 How do 1 dispose of Arocler 1254/1260, etc. effluent from my plant? Answer; We would suggest collecting all process effluent, equipment washings, tank or drum washings and then regularly taking to the nearest toxic materials dump. You may also be able to use a sanitary land* fill if permits are issued for this In your locality. We don't recommend feeding this material to local sewage treatment plants or taking Out to sea in drums for dumping. These methods do not MCN2 0*1963 HARTOLDMONOOl 5077 s tolve tha problem of contamination. We in working on the dispoaal of that* mat*rial* by incineration and biodegradation. Our work in theae aroa* haa not yot reached th etage wharo w can offer practical auggeatlena. It la of intarait to note, however, that research ia underway fo find eatalyata to maka . DDT a* U-destructive. Tha possibility exitt* that wa could i find eatalyata that would da a troy PCS* la aotiling tanka eon* atructad to catch all your affluent*. Quaatlon 1 Can 1 t* at my effluent to U mr afQoant ha* ao Arodor 1254. . ate. ? . . Anawart . Yea. Analytical equipment la available that can do thia If tha proper technique la used. The baaia of the method 1* Gi or gaa liquid chromatography. Are you or aayooo In your company familiar with thia 7 Do you have GLG equipment? 11 you do. wo can aead you a deacrlption of * a method that could identify PCS. II not. there may be a good analytical Mating laboratory in the vicinity where you could aead sample* tad rely on the reaulta If you want to teat your effluent.. Quaatlon 5 What la a "lafe" PCS level for effluent leaving my plant? Anawr; A* our lattar point* out, parts per million (ppm) and parte per billion (ppb) have bean mentioned in the published articles. There la still a lot of doubt as to how absolute any quoted value* are. To bring thia into the realms of reality, this - definition of ppm and ppb may help clarify things. To give you a practical example, the escape of one-two gallons per day could lead toeamplaa in a atre am beside the plant showing 10-50 ppb on analytic. ' MO hi 0*Hbb HARTOLDMONO015078 c. Qu**tlon 4 Ym mud have quit* a control problem at your plant***! would think Monsanto'* Aroelor plant* aro the major poUaurs--bow'aro you handling control? An*w*r: ` Th# Aroelor product* wo mak* to **U at a profit, 10 oconomic* dictate maximum hou*kopiag, minimum lo**a. The Aroelor proeo** la a "dry proea**" or elo**d tyatom. Qua*tlon 5 h Hew dooa Uonaanta think Aroelor* can got into the environment and cauao to mack pollution? Anwort Disposal, laakag* from ayitam* using it, *pill, ate.' Quation 6 If 1 analyte my effluent atream and find ppb there, how do 1 know it didn't com* from air-borne contamination or wa* preaent in the proeea* water that 1 pump from the XYZ river into my plant? An*wer:' Analyea wetar adoring your plant and compare. There ia a method available for aampling air. Qu*tloa ? You *e*m to think from the tone of your letter that the aouree of pollution i* from effluent disposal into *tr*am*. In my proc*a, Aroelor 1234. 1260. etc. vapor* escape. What pre caution* can 1 take to prevent (a) employee problem* and (b) oacapo of vapor* into the atmosphere ? MOMS 061943 HARTOLDMONO015079 7 Answer (7) ^ - Articles on PCS Interference with pesticides analysis have mentioned tha possibility X less to the imoiphtri treat vaporisation whan Aroclort art heated. W find this hard to believe and if warrants considerable investigation. TOXICITY Qua a tio n 1 IX PCS la a dan gar to Xiah and birdSi how about humans 7 Answer; ' The amounts being Xownd la tha environment ara not eonsldarad a dangar to humans or Xish. Tha wbola question on chlorinated pastlcldas relates to birds. Qua tlon 2 Ara Aroelor US4/12M, ate. mora toxic than other Aroclora? Why? . Answart . Thara is a diXXarsacs in toxicity depending on dagroe oX chlorination. This is not to say that higher chlorination is more toxic than lower chlorination. The allagsd PCS problem is not really related to degree oX toxicity. pgrtatwcis arrwrrN arocloss Question 1* * <% In your letter! you state that Aroelor 5050,'5442 and 5460 are not PCSs. What are they? An swart , They are chlorinated terphenyls. / 1 MOMS 041944 - / HARTOLDMONO015080 What's the difference between a chlorinated biphenyl and a terphenyl? * Answer; A terphenyl has three bensenss linked togather aad biphenyl only two. They are. therefore, *trailer bet iilia rent, juot aa naphthalene la different from baaaeae. Question 3* Why should PCS be aa environmental contaminant and chlorinated terpheayle not? . Anewert 1 don't think there la any positive anewer on thia aad 1 can't five you any theoriea. However, J would emphaaite that not all PCSa appear to bo contaminants. Tboee each aa Aroclor 1221, 1232, aad 1242 haven't been Identified in marine, aquatic and wildlife environment*. Chlorinated terpheayla at leaat there made by hione anto-- have not beea identified In the environment either. Option 4 * Since you tell other PCSe beside Aroclor 1254 and 1260, why are they not found in the environment? An ewer; One reason could be that they biodegrade and benca never build up to a level where they caa be labelled peraiatent contaminant*. Therefore, although you would find it in an effluent atream if you analysed it Juat after you poured PCS into it, ita absence when a river, for example, is analysed downstream at a later data would indicate degradation by bacterial organisms. We are actively Working on thia aspect of biodegradability in our laboratories at thia time. Results of this type of work won't come to hand quickly but our preliminary work on PCS* of loss than 54% chlorine looks promising. *C*S 0*1*47 HARTOLDMONOOI5081 Question 5 Ja your letter, yon make no mention of Aroclor 1262 and 1264. What ia thoir status? ' Anrwc r: It could ba that thoir seml*eoUd/soUd watir iaaolublo nature means they ar far. far lees likely to bocomo "mobile" contarnIn ante. It could bo that thoir structural differ*ness from Aroclor 1254 and 1260 aro responsible for tho apparent lack of a problem. In aay event, they havo not boon identified by ocloatiata la tho oavlroamont aad**bolivo a lot of oclontlata ooom to bo looking for PCBa. Question 6* Both Aroclor S460 and 1260 contain 60% chlorine. Why la one a problem (1260) ead apparoatly aot tho other (5440)7 Antweri A terphenyl haa three beaaeaee linked together and biphenyl only two. They aro, therefore, (trailer bat different, just ae naphthalene la different from beaneae. 1 would emphasise that aot all PCBa appear to bo contaminants. Those such aa Aroclor 1221, 1252, and 1342 haven't been Identified ia marine, aquatic and wildlife environments. Chlorinated terphenyla*-at least those made by Monsanto-have not been identified in tho environment either. Question 7* f Does this PCS problem mean that you havo discontinued efforts to get Aroclor 5460 approved by FDA7 Answer; Ho. ftOk5 061940 HARTOLDMONO015082 Hi Question > . U the reason ter not ro submitting your petition to tho FDA tot approval ot Aroclor $460 duo to this PCS publicity? Aarwo r: No. Question 9 What's the problem than? We are bringing a new solid Aroclor plant on-sireem in tbo aont two-three months. Wa want to make sura it produces tbo aamo quality Aroder $460 we used la our feeding ' studies lor the FDA. Once we're <ure lhat't O. K.-- and we leal it will be--thoa we'll get the petition moving again but FDA clearance a do taka time. Question 10 One a this PCS publicity mean that FDA approval ot Aroder $460 la aot going to be obtained? Aarwert . We have no realon to think the two thlnga are related. Aroclor 5460 la aot chemically a PC3. The delay readied from the need to eat up certain analytical methede to aatialy FDA. Thia involved analytical instrumentation and ia being completed now. \ tX ia my underatanding we plan to reaubmit our petition although ^ X personally don't know the enact date. CONTAINERS Question 1 Joe Doe buye all my uaed Aroclor drums without mo having to wash them. 1 get $3. 00 a piece. 1 cen't alior4.to wash them out. Even It 1 did. what would 1 do with the washings ? .HONS 0*1949 / HARTOLDMONOOI5083 n (Queition 1 eon't) What thnuld l dot Should 1 tell Joe Doe? WiUMonaanto take thorn back or pay mo $3.00 plua my coeta to lake them to * dump ? Don't have an in awe r at thia time. Wo juet don't knew. APPLICATIONS . Pupation 1* Could Aroelor 1234/1260 eecapa from my eoalant/adhaalvu/ coating whatever into Uto environment? Anawar: Thia will depend entirely on the final uae ta which your product la ueed-Ue ultimata dlepoeltioa. . Pupation 3* My product X coataine Aroelor 1254/1260. What abouldj tell my cuatamora t . Aaawart Tell your euatemorWo want to adviao you of a poeaible environ* mental problem. Without knowing what your cuatomar doae with product X. thia la hard to anawo r. (We would aay that it Trtuld aot teem wiae to uao Aroelor 12S4 or 1260 for keeping duet down on the roada, for uae la dental eealing compound* jt- or aa earriara for peaticidoa. ) Only if you auapeet or are told thia la ' what the application ia. Pueetion_3 Doe a Monaanto intend to continue manufacture of Aroelor 1254/ 1260, etc. ? HCIlS 0*1430 HARTOLDMONO015084 Answer (l)t 12 1 ktvt b(ft given no indication otkiiviii, Question 4* ' Should I look for replacems nt for Aroclor 1254/1210, sie. ? Aniwtt* ` 1 think only you aa decide this. How caey would thia ha for you? Do you hare any othor replacomeet product la mind? Quaatiow 5* Deo a Monaanto hav* replacement product* for Aroclor 12S4 and 1210? - Anawar; Aa you know, wo havo ovor eighty plaatlcssara In our Una and thara'a quit* a bit of product interplay ao It is poeeihle that tbora ia another product in our lino that might raplace thorn. What rcaia do you uao ? Perhapa wa could look at thaaa re sin/plastieiser Solector Charts in the back of the Slue Book. I've got it with ao. . Qua ation 1* la Mooaaato working on roplacamonta for Aroclor 1254 and 1214? ' Anawan , ^Thesa raaearch fallows ara always huay on thing* like that. j^Sta locaa people Aroclor 1234 aod 1210 have draw-backs.- .' 4*It* apart from present publicity on PCD. Aroclor 1234 ` ia fairly volatile. Aroclor 1210 la very viaeoua and difficult to handlo. Tor polysulfide sealants, for example, the technical people in St. Louis havo juat sent us data on produeta that will behave batter than Aroclor 1214 in polysolfide sealants. Maybe thcre'a something hero for you to look at. Let's go ovor it. 1 MOMS 001451 HARTOLDMONO015085