Document xzDrDexVY6rrqg1x3282y3M50

V. R. Richard - Research Center January 11, 1971 AROCLOR - MCS 1016 9t. E. Keller R. M. Kountz J. R. Savage R. H. Munch/E. S. Tucker r Ch. * CL S.2ndJt. - RKOUN - JSAVA I received another letter from A1 Posefsky reiterating hie con cern on 1) blodegradablllty of NCS 1016 (he wants rate data) and 2) keeping the 0.L. rating and fire resistance. Ralph told me that in order to restore the full Aroclor 12*12 chlorine content we would have to cut into 17$ of the product eliminating some of the 2,4-dlchloroblpheny1, which we don't want to do. It seems we 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 some reasonable fire re sistance In lsomerized Aroclor 1239 and 1240 In trying to reach a new transformer fluid In the work done by Jim Sullivan. I believe It was NCS 717 and NCS 762. Naybe we should Just take a look at the fire resistance of NCS 1016; do some experimental work on NCS 1016 vs. a "party restored Cl fluid 1240" vs. Aroclor 1242. 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 Isomers are degrading lm rats fish chickens oow's milk river water activated sludge Ca cultures and which Isomers are not degrading, even though the rates are low. NCS 1016 needs to be put In this context. We also need to give some Indication of at least Cc culture rate data with and without biphenyl. Light degradation - This Information from Bloomfield needs to be brought together. MONS 099193 -2 Will Ralph pleaae lead the reevaluation of the chlorine and FR level and will Scott and Ralph put the etory together on biodegradation. Thanke. W. R. Richard /le HONS 0991 99