Document dQM4xXnvnXpg7rYaY46O7Lq96

kkmii /feS^Mamv ' ;. . .<rtiAat/eClSe*S ' ' B*f.' KWKtl 2iv$u<Mal BIO -TEST Jk6o^yueA. Dnc ' IBtO PHONTAGt ROAD NORTHBROOK. ILLINOIS 60062 August 4. 1975 *f coat lx 'IlIXioM >'l')0|9 DlvGeorge J, Levin skas, Manager Environmental Assessment and Toxicology Monsanto Company 800 North Lindbergh Boulevard 8t* Louis, Missouri 63166 Dear Georget . Ret A roc lor - 2 Year Rat Studies . In regard to the comments and questions covered in your letter dated July 18, 1975, pertaining to the above, please note the following: 1* We will amend our statement in the last paragraph on page.2 of the Aroclor 1254 report to read, "does not appear to be.carcinogenic'1 in place of "slightly tumorigenic" as requested. 2. In regard to the animal numbers in the Aroclor 1242 and 1260 reports, they are correct in our final revised report, la the original reports, the Aroclor titles for these two materials arere reversed*. ? 3.: The animal Identification numbers appearing in the reporta oa.evaluation of additional liver sections are the same as those1 in cur original report. The animals were not renumbered. 4* We cannot find aay discrepancy in animal identification numbers in the reports (original, re-evaluation, final revision) on Aroclor 1254. However, in the report on re-evaluation of additional liver sections dated March 24, 1975, there was a typo graphical error on page 1 which referred to Aroclor 1260 instead o4 1254* Perhaps this is the basis of your confusion. I hope that this will serve to further clarify the situation. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. Sincerely yours, Q^ 019835 J. C. Calandra President STLCOPCB4007768