Document k9p7ggg9rQwyQjkVkwmkqZoLy

T^K^o^fa Monsanto M O tt l r * * j * > .* * # S i L cvtt, 1W * f**'0*4 *V-K>CO August 19, 1982 Dr. Raymond R. SusAind .v Inst1tut* of Environmental Health Kettering Laboratory 3225 Eden Avenua Cincinnati, Ohio 45267 >---'-:--'*--.v^- * ; - V 5- " :: Dear Ray i .. In response to your request, I an providing you with the following information as to levels of "dioxin* in the 2,4,S-T Monsanto - Manufactured at its Hitro, V est Virginia plant. 'As you know,-'the chemical-2,4,5-T .is the subject of certain litigation including Agent Orange and the suits brought by a nuaber of former and * current Nitrb employees, so this information should be treated sensitively. - r- - - - ' ; The information ve have is sparse.. We have no information as to. the levels-of dioxin -which -ay-have^been .present in the materials emitted in the 1949 process accident. Similarly, ve have no information on dioxin levels in the 2,4,5-T produced fro 1947-1959. Beginning in 1965, Monsanto obtained the capability, crude and non-specific by today's standards, to conduct analyses for dioxin. However, that technology could separate out the 2,3,7,B tetrachloro isomer, or even the 7VuDls. Accordingly, the dioxin data generated in the testing cf 2.4,5-T samples probably constitute for each sample .a gross neituie of a mix of dioxin isomers and differing chlorine content measured as one.' Using the limited technology obtained, Monsanto in 1965 analyzed six or seven still-available camples of 2,4,5-T it had manufactured during the period 1959-1965. While the testing of samples of 2.4,5-T manufactured during the period 1965-1969 vac more extensive, the samples were not collected on any sort of. regular, periodic basis. Thus, for that period ve do not have a sample from each batch, or fro each day's production, or anything of that nature. Rather, *camples were tested on an irregular basis with no discernible pattern. .. r* - 7 - t j - ' , _ r '^ ^ . ' r - V * . , *. . -i '' ;* in./R ayiaond R. ' Suckind -2- Augu-Jt 19, 1932 In Addition to the foregoing, any effort to draw conclusions About the levels of dioxin to which Monsanto cnployecr. at MiVro may have been exposed bust taV.r into account at least u*u ether factors: (1) Monsanto node numeroui changes in its 2,4,S-T manufacturing process, with the result that, . .: * 'in cneral, in the id and late 1960*s as Monsanto's production of 2,4,5-T increased, the level of.dioxin in'Its product declined; and * J _ _ . ?* i1-* :r^-' dioxin produced in the process* .* :r _5 . 4 - '*- . *- 'Subject'to',the caveats stated above, I can tell you that, overall, the samples tested showed dioxin ranging from undetectable levels -to 16 ppm. vith occasional excursions to levels near 25 ppm. - : V ,During o n e ;very brief period in 1965, dioxin .levels i n .three * .. samples ..measured between 40 -and 55 ppm. On average;' and I repeat;."/ /^Sf.tbe s a m p l e s :were n o t analyzed on any regular;' periodic basis, n" 1 'tht - cunlii tasted were "in'the area of 6--B i GR/ln :'**'bcc R. T. Be rendt E2ND!-`- C...F. Callis -- B3CA. Ceorg Roush, Jr., M. D. Director, Dept, of Medicine and Environmental Health