Document dngz1xY7J4Q0Nk71dnvLKyMk9

* 11 Fcbruary 25, 1969 ;,i:o;j,o:- wild Lin: -iViL)_LabOil, J.or-i c.n_=--L7QQ_So_SecondL E. Keller - So. Second T. Garrett - GO D. Uudgec - GO i.\ n. Itichnrd/K. P. V.'hoclcr Genoral Offices On 9-6-CS four samples, two sediment and tv:o water, from Snow Creel; were received for Aroclor analysis. The water and pediment were campled on 8-27-G8 at the plant out fall and approximately one bloc!; below the plant out fall. The results of the analysis are ns followss Amount Aroclor Found Sample Designation Sediment Water Plant Out fall * 0.20+0.02% 58+2 ppb* Plant Out fall (1 blk) 1.64+--0.04% Sample broken in transit. **No less than this amount present. ' . .; ' ' . The amount of Aroclor found was calculated as Aroclor 1242. The EC/GC traces of the sediment were unmistakably Aroclor 1242. The water extracts appeared to contain only the lighter chlorin ated species along v;ith a number of other electron capture active materials. Per thic reason a "no less than" value is stated, more quantitative results w'i 11 have to await the development of more specific separation techniques. Dill, on the basis of this, information, I think that if the PCB accusation turns out to be true and the government people become more active, we should plan on an extensive evaluation of the extont of contamination in this area. For example, samples should be taken further dovm Snow Creek, down Choccolocco Creek and even from the Coosa River if necessary. . You might check, but 1 think the lab there has the necessary equipment and could carry out this study. E. Scott Tucker db TRAN 009858 DEPOSmON m awEXHIBIT WATER PCB-SD0000009038