Document ppGgaV2rGOzGnK3ZMY58Bb8ka

Monsanto .-,`v P. G. Benignus .'*1 February 8, 197*1 *1 1 Transformer Pyranol TO : C. PATON " 1920 K. W. Easley B2SL H. S. Bergen B2SL T. L. Gossage TIB R. H. Munch T3A W. R. Richard BIND W. B, PapaReor^e B2SI, J. R. Savage B2SI, J. L. Wlkoff 1650 P. L. Slayton 1650 J. G. Bryant 1070 H. R. Ford X. General Electric's Stand on Transformer Pyranol Following Raab and Keith discussions with our Mr. Cunningham, G.E. was convinced that PCBs will continue available to meet their forecasted requirements. Price increases consistent with costs are anticipated. But certainly the amount of Aroclor 125*t used in Pyranol bears direct relation between the cost of TCB vs. PCB. At this time G.E. is advised that there is no shortage of TCB, However, for technical reasons O.E. at both Pittsfield and Rome desire a high percentage of PCB over TCB. Following a throe month survey by their top management in their transformer division, of all business considerations of all types of Pyranol transformers (including: costs, tech nology, gas vs. dry vs. other liquids, manufacturing facili ties, market acceptance, G.E.'s present major share of the markets, G.E.'s responsibilities to transformer users and to the environment), G.E. has decided and advised Art Peltasalo to stay in the Pyranol business, if at all possible. This means that O.E. will fight to have attainable and reasonable EPA standards to allow G.E. to stay in this business. G.E. has begun intensive lobbying in Washington. As the proposed EPA standards will become law in July, 1975 if these are realistically modified, it is most likely that O.E. will go to court. They assume that Monsanto, as well as Westinghouse, will do likewise. A further assump tion is that G.E. capacitor people will also join this effort as it must be a united G.E. stand. II, Things O.E. Asked Monsanto To Do That Have Not Been Done O.E. has not received Monsanto's written data on Aroclor soil migration and biodcgradablllty tests. They urge that this highly favorable data be released and used actively in pursuing the case for PCBs at EPA by the users of trans formers and capacitors. HONS 030768 -2- O.E. still wait, and ufge that Monsanto respond to G.E. questions of the price sensitivity of Aroclor 12'>4 (up and down) relative to volume use. As this is strongly influenced by use or discontinuation of FCBs for capaci tors, Monsanto is urged to pursue and use their above given transformer Pyranol posture which strongly supports continued use of PCBs when we deal with G.E.'s capacitor people. Specifically, we should bring this to attention at G.E. Hudson Falls and strive to withhold unwarranted promo tion of Econol. Its promotion is misleading to Govern ment officials and in fact to all others than the rela tively few people who understand the immediate purpose and limitations of Econol (phthalate ester). III. Mark The Following Monsanto should consider the possibility that G.E. (like much of the industry already) could become interested in the use of Aroclor 1242 and 1016 for transformers if: A. EPA recognizes different degrees of blodegradablllty and B. If Nationail Electric Code, IEEE, A STM, ANSI, NEMA and UL change their definition of askarel to require only that the liquid be non-flammable and delete all refer ence to the non-combustibility of arc-formed gas. Through these technical organizations the original defini tion of transformer askarel has already been altered for Westinghouse to better cover them from a legal point of view relative to their use of Aroclor 1242, after they and our laboratory noted that the arc formed gas from Aroelcr 1242 has a degree of combustibility, Mow Vlestinghouse wonder -- why not use Aroclor 1016 in transformers? But mark that this is the first time that G.E. has indica ted' entertaining use of Arcelor 1842 or lOlb for transfor mers. As the chance for primary explosion with askarel is little different (the same) as with mineral oil, perhaps the non-combu3tibility of arc-formed gas generated during such a devastating explosion is relatively unimportant and the main thing is that the fluid (like) Aroclor 1242 and 1016 does not sustain combustion. HONS 030769 -3- As today's environmental considerations now enter this debate to a very marked degree, man's concern over remote salmon eggs, etc. may easily over-ride his feeling of need to prevent a secondary explosion, especially as the primary blow will be far more devas tating. A. Aroclor 1260 was eliminated and our research and plant people rearranged things. B. Our research and plant people should anticipate the possible elimination of Aroclor 125A and de termine how best to rearrange things in that event. In the meantime we will continue to try to retain maximum use of Aroclor 125A for transformer Pyranol. However, whereas the EPA still regards all chlorina ted biphenyls (except perhaps mono) as being "bad PCBs", the time may come when the EPA understands our teachings and becomes convinced that there is signi ficant biological difference between pentachloro vs. tri and dichloro biphenyls. The French, certainly Dow and to some extent the Germans anticipate this attitude against pentachloroblphenyl. tUf- P. G. Benignus cs HONS 030770