Document 3erZyw2o47xG7zRbM3z9VM39y

November 4, 1944 19 H r . 0. B . Lev i s , Ethyl Corporation, Chrysler Building, New York City 17* `. Dear M r . Levis i _ I have deliberately postponed the ansver to your letter of September IS, concerning the tanks aboard aircraft carriers. The analytical data on the samples from Norfolk taken by Mr. Mason have been on my desk since a little after the middle of September. Such as they are, these data indicate that no significant hazard existed in connection vith the cleaning or repair of these tanks, from the aspect of lead exposure. Hcvever, I hesitate to use such scanty evidence in arriving at any broad conclusions on this problem. As you will remember, we found highly variable results ih our survey of gasoline storage tanks in general, and we were forced .to the conclusion that there was no predictability as to the magnitude of the potential hazard in a given instance. On this account I am disposed to be very conserva tive in the interpretation of the analytical results obtained on two vessels of this t y p e . Any opinion which we might give out would have to be qualified to such an extent as to have little practical usefulness, and if we were to issue a statement of any kind in connection vith these data,we might be responsible for a fairly general implication that no lead hazard existed in connection with equipmentof this type. I am enclosing a copy of the analytical results for your : perusal. If you compare both the organic and inorganic lead content of these samples with those found in our tank cleaning survey, you will find thatthey are quite low and are within the insignificant range of results. It Is not possible to say that the inorganic lead was or was not derived from tetra* ethyl lead. It is probably that it was in part derived from this source. On the-other hand, the overall quantities of the sludge as well as the concentrations were so small as to be unimportant. I see no reason why you should not report these findings In a general way to the field if you choose. However, if you do, T Mr. 0. B. Levis, - (2) - November 3 , 1 9 W you should be careful to indicate that they are only pre liminary results and that they do not justify any broad conclusions. I am sure *'*r. Mason vill be glad to have the results and to report them to the authorities at N o r f o l k . I suggest that this be done informally if at all, and that the warning be issued against the conclusion that these results are necessarily representative. Very truly yours, RAK ef Enc . i.obert A. Kehoe, M. D. KZ 00 0n0 o .t'