Document x1GZOdKr4KLv3BEq2X3vJnm66

e> Monsanto ....... ... *........ Doit nun it c i v:. n. iHeh.-ro - ; `c.rcli C- "hr r January n, 1971 AROCLOR - MCS 10)6 R. IS. Keller R. M. Kountx J. R. Savage - S.Tnr: Ri.OUf - JS/.VA I received aiiothc r letter from A1 Posefrky reiterating his con cern on ).) bi.odegre Until ity of MCS 1016 (he wants rate data) and 2) keeping the U.L. rating and fire resistance. Ralph told ist the.6 in order to restore the full Aroclor 12<)2 chlorine content we would have to out into 17b> of the product eliminating some of the 2,^-dichloroUiphenyl, which we don't want to do. It acorns wc should try to make.the best of the situation; calcu late a position which restores part of the chlorine level and which makes economic sense. We showed come reasonable fire re sistance In isomcrlzed Aroclor 12J and 12*)3 in trying to reach a new transformer fluid in the work done by Jim Sullivan. 1 believe it was MCS 717 and MCS 762. Maybe wc should just take a look at the fire resistance of MCS 10l6; do come experimental work on MCS 10l6 vs. a "party restored Cl fluid 12l)0" vs. Aroclor 12*12. The biodegradation rate has to be clarified in our own minds and In the eyes of the industry. I think this has to be put in the context of what icomers are degrading in: rats fish chickens cow's milk river water activated sludge Cz cultures . and which It.omerc arc not degrading, even though the rates are low. MCS 10)6 needs- to be put in this context. We also need to give rome indication of at least Ca culture rate data with and without biphenyl. - 1,1 glit degradrtion - This information from Bloomfield need:- )-o u. brought i.oge i v, MONS 096683 Will Ralph pleace lead the revaluation of the chlorine and FR level and will Scott and Ralph put the story together on biodegradation. Thanks. W, R. Richard /it MOWS 098684