Document ByX6kNbvE9105Q3goqY7rnp8J

MCS 1889 DISCUSSION WITH EUC (OUTLINE) 1. In discussions in 1976 concerning forward availability of MCS 1889 we advised that there was another application for this chemical, and that we expected to continue marketing for this application for the foreseeable future. 2. The major user for the application has encountered market difficulties with their end product and approached us on April 19th requesting our cooperation in phasing away from MCS 1889 as quickly as possible to an improved product. 3. Request that our discussion of situation be confidential in that it includes another major corporation. 4. Our suggested candidate for such replacement will use the same equipment and would allow us to continue to produce MCS 1889. 5. The reason for product change is odor not safety. 6. If we produce MCS 1889 in same unit as new product, the need for additional storages and the impact on costs will depend on variables such as: a) Volume MCS 1889 b) Volumes of new product c) Changed raw material handling practice d) Number of production runs per year e) Need for additional storages f) Acceptability of new product These are not as yet defined. 7. We wished to alert EUC to our situation recognizing the status of their MCS 1588 development program. 8. We commit to keeping them advised fully as our program proceeds. We expect to develop a much .more defined position in one month. We have no electrical data on the new product for the traditional application. (If necessary to make the issue clear, I will, given Hauser's agreement to consider the information confidential, disclose that the problem which has developed relates to odor levels in carbonless paper applications). /kk 0b o^1 PCB-ARCH0744502