Document B6mngqVD6zRnLDwEGNynBxzL

U M nnr^nio TC N. T. Johnson St. Louis Pebruaryl6, 1970 PCLL.U TION LZ7TZ3 ?. Craska - Wilmington . C. Clay - Sc. Louia J. K. Daviaa oa - Loa Angeles 3. A. Damiaai - Chicago C.J. "ague - Detroit R.A. Garcia - Akron 3. Gamsworthy - Melbourne J. A^.Keilala - Akron 3. Irwin, - Houston . J. S. Pullman - Now York, J.J. Rader - Chicago 3. Gila a - Melbourne ?. J. A. Marsh - Brussels 3. Zarhardt - New York T. W. Caeaoa - Montreal J. N. Kaggart - Brussels V. Morse - Sc. Louis J. Brydoa - Moatreai 3. Grar.ar-i - New York ?. G. Beaigaus J. G. Bryant D. Z. Roush D. A. Hall S. 3. Pogue D. T. Smith D. A. Olsoa Attached is a list oi Questions and answers which stay be asked of ' you by customers receiving our Aroclar-PGS letter. You can give verbal answers; as answers should be given in wrisiag. If the customer asks a o.uestioa you can't answer or if he wants an . answer in writing, then sead his quo scion i to me and we will answer from here. We want to avoid any siraatten where a customer wants to return fluid. The new reformulated products will be available within a month. We would prefer that the customer use his current inventory and purchase Pydraul 62SA. Pydraul ACA, Pydzaul ACA Wioxar Grade and Pydraul 540A when available. He will then top off wish the new fluid and eventually all Arecior 1254 and Axoclor 1260 will he out of his system. We_don^tj2atjo_jak*_finid_bain Sell his the replacement. We most be very positive in oar approach with each customer relative to our decision ta eliminate the use oi Arocler 1254 and Aroclor 1260 in our Pydraul products. We (your customer and Monsanto) are eat interested in using a product which may present a problem ta our environment. We eertainly have no reason so be defensive or apologetic about making this change. The decision to change makes good sense and our customers should commend us, net eristeise our acuans. No a e has foreed us ta make this PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT m. STh CC11LC 17 * STLCOPCB4023912 z change. We have done it to keep our cue tamers out of possible trouble. They should appreciate our effort, stay with us as a customer on the reformulated Pydrauls. 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. Son'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 thnr products. We should also recognise (point this out to your customer) we must eiean-up. The Chemical Week article gives him an idea of laws in effect in his state. Read this yourself. Be familiar wish the data on each state in which your customers are located. Use this in your discussions. _ ' * We have no replacement products for Arocior 1254 and Arocior 1260_;'m We will eonsnue 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 amende 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 amached a copy of the letter sens to mansformer . customers.) - N. 7. Johnson 5TJ) 002311 STLCOPCB4023913 Monsanto UQftsnt 300 *i. Uawtorqn lowiwwara Si. *aiu& Miwsawn I318A N"r 9Ui ifd.iOOO r#inar/ 9, 1970 i4Mmc Sear Sir: Recently several newspaper and magazine articles have been published indicating that Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PC3s) have been discovered at seme points in sea* ns Tins, aquatic and wildlife environments. Tbs quaatitiss dstsetsd ars said ta bs ia tbs parts par sillies asd parts par billies categories. It is claiasd that tbs PC3s found strongly rssaabls eblerinatad biphenyls containing 54a a&d 60% cblorin* by wsigbt. Products which ass sold by Messante under tbs trada aaass of Aroeior* 1254 a&d 1260 da contain eblerinatad bipbasyls'. Is addition to Arocior* 1254 asd 1260, Mossasta sails eartais functional fluids containing Arcelor* 1254. Tbasa include Pydraul* 625, Pydraul* AC, Pydraul* AC - Winter Grade, Pydraul* 540, Thersincl* PR-3 and certain dielectric fozsulatio&s. Several other companies around the world also produce products costalcing eblerinatad bipbasyls. As your supplier of Aroeior* 1254 and 1260 and formulated produets containing 1254, we wish to alert you to tbs potential problem of environmental cant ami nation as referred to in the newspaper a&d nag asins articles. ..We would libs ta point out the following additional facts. 1. Produets such as Pydraul* 90, 125, 230, 312, A-200, P-9, 150 asd 60, Turbincl* 153 asd Tberaincl* PR-1 a&d PR-2 are not formulated with Areclor* 1254 or 1260. 2. ?C3s with a chlorine content of less than 54% have not been found is the environment asd appear to present no potential problem to tbs environment. . _ .CCiJ u________ STLCOPCB4023914 We have developed, tad are bow testing, new formulations to replace the Arocior* 1254 tad 1260 components in our Pydraul products. Tit av produets appear to be equal ia performance tad to have similar physical properties. Ve eel that all possible care should be takes ia the applica tion, processing aad effluent disposal of these products to preveat them becoming environmental contaminants. Of interest to you may be an article ia Chemical Week, October 29, 1969 regarding water pollution standards set by each state in the Union. Zt is attached. This article reflects that good manufactu--ng practice ia the future may require that no products used by any eoapany should find their way into waterways. Sincerely yours, ale Attachment /C it. e'C" (1m* -- Donald X. Olson Director of Sales . functional fluids Croup STLCOPCB4023915 R e ce n tly several new spaper and magazine a rtic le s have bees published in d ic a tin g that P olychlorinated Biphenyls (FC B s) have been discovered at som e points in seme m a rin e , aquatic and w ild life environm ents. The q u a n titie s detected are sa id to be in the p a rts p e r m illio n and p a rts p e r STLCOPCB4023916 4a * oi- o- I .O 0 lu f_ in. ooo CO U) uC r I 5 JJ <. cr 5!l o 3' 3 |3S :VtK l< I#) <4 & 8 of Ds 111 1113a.n3 "go M u *3 'll 8 3 m -d sN I JT " a* ? sn 13 N O 3 **3 9- Oi *.go 3h 5t'*> 9 ^ * m 3 m 8 g ij u 3 Uil18?**S111* S H 2 a" oMP-e od_J *M^>3"P5 ti * * "3 13 5. tn3 ,, p! i ^ 3 PJ TOMl D. a? O0 3hO 0 .2 15 3"^ f1e"*I0# *1|91 V*2 lWl >A 1- -w 3 0t *T 11Ja' n" d h9 *II 3?1*1M<5i p. e aa 851 8 t d o m 9 a 0 *1 a (I d fl s3,, 3 29 o". m SI 5 M p. ?3 58.g iii j 9 JE* mu' 3N i. s o 8 eM 32"I? d o *8 It 4 * > me (1 2 a* 8u %ahmT! fo0!i 9 3 <: e OM t-n o O' Ut *I0t N Is 3u 9 i 1 o : o 3 rH| ^ * . 1*1 o l**l_ o pa uo O ao ocr* 3 3i Jr*p D 3O n. P m 3-< J 2 si o a jj 3 f g y T, 3 3- h 9a u0 wo* H ii 1 o 51 O > V y s 5 li ad 0 ; *2 8 fl i t ii $d 1s1 * S. mO d 99 mrt *5 :e 0 0* ^OM a .M d ad ou 9 8 dp. O 0 a 9 M O M d 0 2u ft I >d * m * g nmu : as rl o 1 tf I- vf , I -2- products appear to be equal in performance and to have similar physical properties. We feel that all possible care should be taken in the application, processing and effluent disposal of these products to prevent them becoming environ mental contaminants. Cf interest to you may be an article in Chemical Week. October 19, 1969, regarding water pollution standards set by each state in the Union. It is attached. This article reflects that good manufacturing practice in the future may require that no product used by any company should find their way into waterways. We realise that you have marketed or may new market transformers and other electrical equipment containing dielecmie fluids which include Arocior 1254 and 1260. Although these fluids are sealed into such equip ment it is recognised that occasionally the fluid may be last through leaks resulting from equipment misuse or equipment repair necessitating replace ment of the fluid. Since the dielectric fluid contained ia this equipment is only an incidental part of the over-all unit manufactured by yon, we are not notifying the purchasers of such equipment of the potential environmental contamination problem described in this letter. We do recommend, however, that you notify such equipment users of this problem. Sincerely yours. Attachment Donald A. Olson Director of Sales Functional Fluids Croup s 7fi CCli l * STLCOPCB4023917 PCSS JSTCMZR CUZSTICNS CN ?C3s ptj'iicrrY Question. 1 Whit articles have appeared on the PC3 pro blest? . Will you send see copies ? ' /. Answer: . Is the U. S., newspaper articles have appeared is the San Francisco Chrsnlcle on Feb. 24, 1969, the Sas Francisco Sxaminer on ?ts. 25, 1969, asd the Hartford Tiir.es on Aug. 5, 1969. Numerous articles were generated by the Wiscoasis "DDT Hearings" is . May,' 1969. At the hearings, witnesses discussed the problem of ?C3s as "interfering substances" in their seareh is? DDT in . the environment. ?C3s, they said, produced peaks on a gas chromatograph similar to the peaks produced by DDT. In no ease was PC3 indicted as the Wisconsin hearings. ' Copies of the articles will be made available on request. Regional managers should contact S. V. John. Public Relations Manager Organic Chemicals Division, in Sc. T A"' and espies will be for ' warded ta the customer through the regional manager's office. In addition to the newspaper articles meesioned above, there have been'radio broadcasts. At the tame of the San F run cisco Chronicle _ and examiner articles. radios in the San Franceses area also carried the story. In August, the sports editor of the Hartford Timas syndicated a radio broadcast on the subject of ?C3s, and in Dec., 1969, the Candiar Broadcasting Co. (radio) carried an interview they taped wish a member of our me dicai deparseas. Question 2 Were Mor.tr. ato1 s Aroclors specifically mentioned in these articles? . If so, which ones? ST" STLCOPCB4023918 y Answer Monsanto's Arociar were mentioned in some of the articles bu: only in, the San Francisco Chronicle story in "so. , 1969, was Arcelor 12:1 specifically mentioned bynumber. In several of the articles, Monsanto was also identified as tie sole U. S. producer of polychlorinated biphenyls, marketed under the tradename of Arstiar. ' Cucstion 3 * What did the articles on the PC3 proolem say? Anawe - Since the outset of the "?C3 problem1', -when the first article appeared in the U.S. press in Feo., 1969, the whole question has been elosely interwoven with the question of DDT as a possible environmencal contaminant. . The San ~rar.gfsco Chronicle aracle carried a headline, "A ' Menacing New Pollutant. " la rather sensational style, is identified PC3 as a threat to birds and humans, highly toxic in a gaseous j state and related to known can car-causers. PC3 presence in tbs environment is rising swiftly, the article stated. The examiner article called PC3 a "plague pollutant in the 3ay ' and Mothers1 Milk." This article called PC3 an "alarming" new ehemical pollutant that is playing vrole in the declining peregrine falcon population, has L^en found in mothers' and is the "latest addition to a growing list of chemicals,in the ocean---- the newest symptom of man1 s chemical invasion of the ocean. " ' These two articles quoted Dr. Robert Rise brought a researcher at the Instir:to of Martna Resources in the University of Califom Department of Nutritional Sciennsts, on the detrimental effects of ?C3s. Hater Dr. Risehrough said he had been misquoted in scrr.e newspaper stories. ' ;* ' The Harvard Times story called PC3 pollution a "new puzzle." Hess sensational tnan the.San ?rancisco articles, the Times gave an. account of ?C3s being found in the environment and the studies : under *tv to determine their biological effects. This article, says Dr. Rise'&ough, tends to clear PC3 cf blame. ' / STi CC 2 2 1 7 STLCOPCB4023919 Artsds* generated by the Wisconsin DOT hearings' generally discussed ?C3 as an interfcring su'ostanee discovered in. scientists' search :ar DDT in she r.vironment. Dr..'Rise brough said as she hearings shas share was aa proof as she moment shas ?C3 aloae can cause shin eggshells, oae of she phenomenon . hi: he had discovered in studying the/dedining population of she neregrins falcon. / // Question I i_dcislat:cn / Are shore any Tederd/Ssasa/local laws under which she use or discharge of Arodors could be prohibised? Answer; No emsting Federal, State, or local laws prohibit she discharge of Arodors. However, in*a scab*; of stasis she basie water pollution eoaerd legislation is so broad that scats agencies can prohibit chemicals,- deemed necessary, franc being discharged. Question Z .. * - Is she DDT and the ?C3 problem related? ' Answer- We arc not a manufacturer of DDT or other chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticide and. therefore, have no knowledge of she seriousness of she charges against DDT other than what has been so widdy publicised . on TV, in she press and in technical journals. To the extent that bath DDT and PC3 are chlorinated hydrocarbons, then there is a similarity. They are sufficiently different in their chemical structures , however, that it would be entirely wrong to assume that both behave in the same way in the environment. There is another and mare osvioua difference. DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides were specifically designed far a job that obviously leads to their being scasts rod in wide spread fashion across the countryside. Bain, birds, wind, insects further scatter these pesticides in an manner. ?C3s are not used in this fashion and STLCOPCB4023920 4 has r.ever sou;h: is promote this. This, we believe, is la important distinction that should cot be overlooked if DDT and ?C2 are linked as a common poilamnt of the environment. To oor knowledge ?C3s have aever beea idensfied-in the absence o! DT or ae; chiorinatad hydrocar boa pesticides. Could it be ?C3 that's causing the environmental problems aad aat DDT? Answer: We believe that p?escht<*day GDC aad mass speetremetrie tech,nicue sare sufficiently accurate ta be able to differentiate between DO related pesticides, their metabolites aad ?C3. Question 4 What auhtariry do State aad local gove mar.eats have ia banning./, controlling the use of ?C3s. ' Answe r: They do have authority to baa or ceasrol use of say substances they consider harmful. . ' . ETTLDSrr AHD ITS CONTROL . _Questioa_l Hew do I dispose of Aroclar 1254/1264, etc. effluent from sy plant? . ' Answer; j . We Would suggest coUechag all process efflueas. equipment washings, tank or drum washings and than regularly raVrng to the aearest . __ - . taxis materials dump. You may also be able to use a sanitary land fill, if permits are issued for this ia your locality. We don't recommend ice din; this maternal ta local sewage trerumen: plants or . taking out to sea ia drmos for dumping. These methods do not STR CCZ21S STLCOPCB4023921 5 solve --.e prosier. ot car.linear:or.. W ire working on i-.e disposal oi these ~ita::iis by incineration and biodegradation. Our work in these areas has-not ye: reached the stage where ' ' we car. cater practical suggestions. 1: is o interest to note, however, that research is underway to find catalysts to stake 337 seltdestructive. The possibility exists that we eould find catalysts that would destroy ?C3s in settling tanks con structed to catch all your effluents. . / Cuestlar. 2 Can 1 test sty effluent to see if sty effluent has no Arcelor 1254, ete. ? // Answer: -Yes. Analytical equipment is available that can do this if the proper technique is used. The basis oi .the method is C1.C or gas liquid chromatography. Are you or anyone ' in your company familiar with this ? Be you have G2.C equipment? If you do, we can send you a description ef a method that could identify ?C3. If not,/ther may be a good analytical testing laboratory is the 'riezsisf where you . could send samples and rely on the results if you wans to test your effluent.. / Question 3 / What is a "safe" ?C3 level for effluent leaving my plans? Answer: / / As our letter points out. parts per mill ion (ppm) and parts per (pp'o) have been mentioned in the published articles. There is still a lot of doubt as to how absolute any quoted ' values are. To bring this into the realms of reality, this definition of ppm and ??b may help clarify things. t To give you a practical example, the escape ef one-two gallons per day eould lead to samples in a stream beside the plans showing 10-50 pph on analysis. ' STk CCi3i- STLCOPCB4023922 L Cue 3`izr. -t , / Ysu --us: hive ^uia a. control problem a: your plar.ts--l would chink Monsanto's Aroelor plants art'the major polluters cow ere you handling eontrol?/ '' /' Answer: / / / The Aroelor products we make to sell at & profit. so economics dictate maximum housekeeping, minimum loses. The Aroelor process is e "dry process" or dosed tysua. Question 5 / / h / How does Monsanto think Arodors een get into the eavirocraeat end cause so such pollution? Answe r: / Disposal, leakage frast- lysuaj using it, spills, etc.-* Question & / / ' __ II I analyse sty efT.uect strees and find ppb 'there, how do I know it didn't eoxse trass air-bome eonTaminarion or was present in the process water that I pump frost the XTZZ river into ay plant? Answer: Analyse wear onto rang your and compare. There is a method .available for sampling air. - Question 7 . You seem to think from the tone of your letmr that the source of is from effluent disposal into streams. In my . process, Aroelor 1254, 1250, etc. vapors escape. What pre- / cautions can I taka to prevent (a) employee problems and / (b) escape of vapors into the assosphere? . STh CC23*l STLCOPCB4023923 t iwcr (T) : Amide5 on PCS interference with pesticides analysis uvi mentioned toe possibility of loss to the acstosphere front vaporisation when Arodors are heated. We hard to believe and to warrants considerable investigation. TOXICITY Question 1 If PC3 is a danger to fish and birds, how about humans? Ar.awe r: i The amounts being found in the environment are nee considered a danger to humans or fish. The whole question on chlorinased pesticides relates to birds. - ' '' . 0 Question 2 '^ ; y Are Aroclor 1254/1260, etc. snore tarns than other Arociors? Why? . ' Answer: There is a difference in totecity depending on degree of chlorination. This is not to say that higher chlorination is SAItMt .V*. Question 1* ' In year letter, you state that ArocloarVA' 5060,*5442 . and 5460 are net PC3*. What are they? f.s' Answer: /, They are chlorinated terphenyls. ' , / . . sTK_ CCil`- STLCOPCB4023924 3 Question le What's the difference between a chlorinated biphenyl a unaeayi? Answer: A terpheuyl has three be.-.ease 4 linked to;other and biphenyl only two. They are, therefore, similar but different. just as naphthalene is different from benzene. Question 3s / / Why should ?CB be aa environmental contaminant and chlorinated serphenyls not? , Answer: I don't think there`is any positive answer on this and I can't ' give you any theories. However, I would emphasize.'that not all ?C3s appear to be contaminants. Those sack as Arodor 1221, 1222, and 1242 haven't been identified in marine, aquatic and wiidlii environments. Chlorinated terpheryls - as least those made by Monsanto-- have not been identified in the environment either. Question 4 ' ` /` / / ' Since you sell ocher ?C3s beside Aroclor 1254 and 1260, . why are they not found in she environment ?.' ' < Answer: j One reason eeuld be that they biodegrade and hence never build up to a level where they can be labelled persistent contaminants. Therefore, although you would find is in an effluent stream if you analysed it just after you poured ?C3 into is, iss absence when a river, for example, is analysed downstream as a laser data would indicate degrsdar.au by bacterial organisms. We are actively worleng on this aspect of btodegradabiliry . in our laboratories at this erne. Results of this type of work won't earns to hand quickly bus our preliminary work on ?C3s of less than 54% chlorine looks premising. - i T cci: STLCOPCB4023925 n Cue tier. 5 It. you? letter, you make nor session of A?odor I2S2 and 1253. What is their status? Is could be that their semi-soiid/solid water insoluble nature .7.1401 they are far, far less likely to became "mobile" eonsasinas.es. Is could be shat their structural differences from Araclor 1254 asd 1250 are responsible for the apparent . lack of a problem, la any evens, they have not been identified by scientists in the environment and--believe me-- a lot of Y scientists seem to be looking for ?G3s. Questiais_6*_ . Both Arcelor 5450 and 1250 contain 50?* chlorine. Why is one a problem (1250) and apparently not the other (5450)? ^ . Answers . ' ' A cerphenyl has three bensenes linked together and biphenyl only two. They are, therefore, similar but different, just as **7>h****,M~ is different from benaens. ' I would emphasise that sec all ?C3s appear to be contaminants. __ Those such as Aroelo; 1221, 1222, and 1242 haven't been identified in marine, aquatie and wildlife environments. Chlorinated terpheayls--at least these made by Monsanto-- have not been identified in the environment.either. ' Question^ /' . Sees this ?CB problem mean that you have discontinued efforts to get Areelor 5450 approved by FDA? . ' Answers STLCOPCB4023926 QuoaviJit 3s Li --c reason far so; resubmitting your ptssaa to the FDA far apprevci of Aroelor 5460 due to ?C3 publicity? Answer: No. Cue atter. 9 * What1 s *ju pro'oloia then? Answer: W ore bringing a now solid Aroelor plan; on-stream in / the aexs two-three stones. Wc wans to make aura is produces/, the same ^uaiiry Aroelor 5460 we used in our feeding /- studies for toe FDA. Once we're sure that's O.IC.-- and.we/ feel is will be--then we 'll get the position saving again bus FDA clearances do cake sh / / Question 13 / /-Does this FC3 publicity ocean that FDA approval of Aroelor 5460 is aas going to bo obtained? Answer: ./ We have no reason to think the ewe things are related. Aroelor 5460 is nos ehesnieally a ?C3. The delay resulted from she need . to set up certain analytical methods to satisfy EDA. This involved analytical instrumentation and is being eeanpleted new. . It is my understanding we plan a resubmit etc petition although X personally don't know the ea ccirTAsreas Question 1 Toe Doc buys all my used Aroelor drums without me having to wash ---- I get S3. 30 a piece.' I can't afford to wash them out. Even if 1 did. what would 1 do with the wasnings ? STS cc STLCOPCB4023927 n (Quuatiuu 1 con't) : Wins should 1 do? Should'! tell Joe 3ac ? Will Monsanto take them and* or uy as S3.CO plus ay costs so tajea shea ta a dump? Answer: an': have ass answer as this cias. W just don't know. Qua s sian la .APPLICATIONS . ' . -- / Could Arodar 1254/1260 ascapa from my so slant/ adhesive/ coating whatever into the environment? ' Answer: This will depend otartly on tha final use ta which yonr produet is used--iss'ulsimass disposition. . Quashes 2* - 3dy product X contains Araclor 1254/1260. What should _I tall av customers ? . ` . . ' ' . 'mmm ' ** *' Answer: ' .'' ' Tall your customer--Wc want so adviso you of a possihla environ- aaasal problem. Without mowing wans your customa r deas wish product X, this is hard ta aamr. (We would say that ' is would sot saam wisa a uso Arodar 1254 or 1260 far keeping dust down on tha roads, far usa in dantal sailing compounds or as carriers for pesticides.')* ' . / Only id you suspscs or ara sold* this is whas tha application is. . / . ' - ; t ' Seas 1-" intend a cansis.ua amnfarmra of Areolar 1254/ 1260. etc. ? .. ------------ .... si* CCi3le STLCOPCB4023928 Should I look 9; replxceiaens for Aroclar 1254/1260, 1::. ? Aaawe : T 1 Thick only you cm decide this. How exsy would this bo for you? So you hive lay other replxcejsseat produce ia sied? Quassias 5a Door Moss into hive re plicaseat produces far Aroclar 1254 xad 1260 ? . '* Aaswer: As you loaw, w have over eighty plxsciciaers ia our lisa there's ^uita x bis of produce iaserpixy so is is possible *u-*~ there is another produce ia our lias that sight roplxcs thas. What rssia do you uso ? Perhaps w <* look xs ts resia/pixstieicerSeleetarCkxrts ia the bxck of the 31u* Book. Pv* goe is wish ate. y Quassias a* Is Moasxata working oa repixeeseats far Aroclar 1254 xad 1260? ` Aaawt?: Those rosoxreh fellows xrs xlwxys busy oa thisgs like due "a sosa people Aroclar 1254 xad 1260 have draw-backs.-- quite Xpert front preseas publictry oa PCS. Aroclar 1254 is fairly volatile. Aroclar 1260 is very viscous xad r .t- to bxadlo. For polysulSde sexlxr.es, for example, the toehnlcih people ia Sc. Louis bxve just sees us-dxsx oa produces this wil^ sacxvo beater ehsa Aroclar 1254 ia polysulfide sexiasss. / Maybe there's something bare for you to look xs. Lot's X go over is. ST a ceil STLCOPCB4023929