Document o9Eg7p3nEBQedQMJ9No9kKLb7

Monsanto industrial chem; ls co. m O M iNAMt * LOCAtlONt J. P. Mieure - T2F = October 29, 1975 . AROCLOR 1016 - G.E. W trtM fN Cl t T O : W. B. Papageorge B2SK / L J > > ts if1 cc, R. E. K e lle r - TIB J. C. Weber - BIND D. Wood - B2SD G.E. is aware o f the chlorodibenzofuran issue and might bring i t up in th e ir defense at the November hearings. During a phone conversation today (10/29) p rim arily discussing a n a ly tica l methodology, Bob Stenger of G.E. fo r the second time raised the issue o f chlorodibenzofurans in Aroclor 1016. Stenger ju s t encountered the a r t ic le by Bowes, Risebrough, et a l, on p. 305 of Nature, 256, 1975, reporting id e n tific a tio n of chlorodibenzofurans in A roclor. Stenger wondered what sig n ifica n ce might be drawn from the data in Table I which suggest the chlorodibenzofuran content is maximum fo r Aroclor 1248, with lesser amounts in higher or lower chlorinated products. I indicated my reluctance to draw any conclusions from one analysis of one or two lo ts o f each product, p a rtic u la rly when using an unvalidated an alytical technique fo r a very d if f ic u lt analysis. The observed two-folcf differences were not, in my opinion, s t a t is t ic a lly s ig n ific a n t. I also pointed out to Stenger that the method would not detect chlorodibenzofurans with three or less chlorine atoms per molecule. I f A roclor 1016 contains chlorodibenzofurans, one would expect to fin d tric h lo ro or lower homologs. This precludes drawing sweeping conclusions from the data 1n Bowes' paper. J . P. Mieure ss l IN 10 REV. t/7 2 NEV 021773 729828