Document DM9ZpVX5YxzVoRzEZN7VdgVXQ

March 8, 1940 Mr* F* S* Shepard Soeony T&cuuiii O il Company 26 Broadway New York City New York Dear Mr* Shepard: Mr* 0* B* Lewis of* the Eth yl Gasolin e Corporation has informed me of your in t e r e st in t alk in g with me at an e ar ly date about the use of proportion eer equipment* Mr* Lewis has at at ed th at you are very w ell sa t isfie d with the operation of the equipment at East St *Lou is* I t was h is impression th at you were anxious to extend the use o f t h is equipment to oth er p lan t s* 1 should be very glad to see you and d iscu ss t h is m atter with you a t an ear ly d at e, and I hope t h is can he don scene time soon when I am in New York* I w ill le t yon know eith er d ir e ct ly or through Mr* Lewis when I expect to be th er e, and 1 sh a ll t r y to su it my convenience to years* Meanwhile I should be lo ss than fran k i f I did not repeat what I haw said before in t h is connection# From the poin t of view of a gen eral program of safe t y in the h an dling o f Ethyl Flu id and the blen din g of leaded gaso lin e , I cm ex ceedin gly sk ep t ical about t h is proportion eer equip ment* I t h as, I b e lie v e , cer t ain fundamentally ob ject ion ab le q u a lit ie s, and in addition th ere may be oth er d iffic u lt ie s in connection with i t s use which on ly time and experien ce oan r eveal* With these ideas in mind, I should be r elu ct an t indeed to take th e r e sp o n sib ilit y for approving th e use of t h is type of equipment* I am qu ite w illin g to be convinced by ex per ien ce, but I think i t i s fa i r to say th at presen t experien ce does n ot e n t it le any o f us to an opinion as tb the adequacy of t h is equipment fo r th e purpose for which i t was intended over any lon g period o f tim e. I f we should fin d th at the use of t h is type of equipment elim in ates cer t ain h azards which e x ist a t the presen t tim e. KB 0 0 2 2 7 5 6 2 * without augmenting oth er h azards and without in troducin g any new on es, I sh all be the f i r s t to recommend i t s u se* I f , on the oth er hand, I t does introduce cer t ain new h azards without m at er ially in fluen cin g oth er s, I sh all continue to be u n alterably opposed to i t s u se* I should say in t h is connection th at the mere convenience associat ed with the u se of such equipment can not be regarded as an adequate b a sis fo r i t s use for t h is purpose, you may draw the con clusion from t h is note t h at I am not complat e ly OO C ii .ii n d o d about the U3C of t h is equipment* I sh a ll have to pload gu ilt y to th at accu sation fo r , as I have in dicated above, th ere are fundamentally objection able q u alit ie s to t h is type of equipment which make i t absolu t ely n ecessary th at i t should prove i t s own case beyond any peradventure* We are not at lib e r t y to change from a. type o f mixing which h as demonstrated over a period of years th at i t ia sa fe , in to one which may have d e fin it e ly hazardous feat u r es beyond th ose which can act u ally bo seen as a matter of p r in cip le* This i s , I b e lie v e , not a question of anyonefa in dividu al or tech n ical s k i l l , nor i t i s a question of loy alt y to anyone*3 id eas or poin t of view* I t i s purely a question of r e lat iv e safet y and in my opinion i t can not bo decided on any oth er b a sis* The proportion eer people have in one or two in stan ces attempted to d iscu ss t ills question with no on the b a sis of the u se of modern engin eerin g mothods* Such an argument i s ir r elevan t and impertinent sin ce, as I r ep eat , we are concerned only with one th in g, the development of the maximum secu r it y in the h an dlin g of an in t r in sic a lly dangerous product* Sin cerely yours, RAK: i a Robert' A* Kehoe, M.B* KE 0022757