Document mBpDDXZVxQbeMRYkjaJE6VeOB

fcf L" l U C I February 21, 1979 Toxicological Significance J. R. Foehr - B2SA J. S. Metcalf - B2MK '1-TO C. F. Callis - B2SA v-#-V'if" . ^hi, ; tilf" '. ': As we'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- [v^/dures. Your people can measure TCDD in amounts even smaller :v> PP111* '"Somebody" -has`determined that .010 ppm is the 'of "toxicological significance," and we duly reported our `OCP reserve sample had TCDD at an average amount .037 ppm to the EPA. ` ' r j fy''] 1-Jh .*>iiX ijA My question is, who is the "somebody" that said .010 ppm. has "l&v toxicological significance" I Khv isn't the level of'~signifi-7 ^IrpancG 0.1 ppm? Is there any indication that lower concentra- lytions arc hazards? V/I'm not a chemist, but neither are most reporters. Jim Mieure " helped me figure out that our trace TCDD contamination ir."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 parameter* is okay for Uncle, why are we asking our people to search for smaller concentrations in our products? ................... " "