Document k4myk4bjdLpBVez4yw8r4pBO

R. C. Isham - B1MD - 2621 February 2 1 f 1979 Toxicological Significance T O C. F. Callis - B2SA J. R. Foehr - B2SA J. S. Metcalf - B2NK As w e 've discussed, analysis of our products for TCDD is giving us a white knuckle atmosphere around here. I'm beginning to wonder if we aren't our own worst enemies on our testing proce dures. Your people can measure TCDD in amounts even smaller than .010 ppm. "Somebody" h a s determined that .010 ppm is the level of "toxicological significance," and we duly reported our OCP reserve sample had TCDD at an average amount .037 ppm to the H P A . My question is, who is the "somebody" that said .010 pom has "toxicological significance"! Why isn't the level of signifig cance 0.1 ppm? Is there any indication that lower concentra tions arc hazards? I'm not a chemist, but neither are most reporters. Jirn Mieure helped me figure out that our trace TCDD contamination in the Sturgeon car works out to 1/8 ounce in 207,000 pounds of material. I don't know if that's hazardous or not, but I do know we reported our findings and we're greeted with both regional and political concern. Could we have said, "We examined the reserve sample and found no TCDD at the level of toxicological significance which is 0.1 ppm"? I also note that Federal pesticide regulations set an upper limit of 0.1 ppm of 2,3,7,8 TCDD in 2,4,5-T pesticide. If that parameter is okay for Uncle, why are we asking our people to search for smaller concentrations in our products? R C I :jt R. C. Isham C0045S