Document e71XRzbBREKMmXMjV4Yk0O2YG

c MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY Texas City, Texas July 1, 1955 To: H. 0 Schleicher cc: A. R. Baker H. K. Eckert CiHr .. L_E.. G_M_ iolmrro.isre J. S. Putnam G. T. Ryan/ C. P. Fullerton W. S. Sevier F. A. Sherwood W. E. WieBe-Springfield V. F. Yates At: Texas City, Texas VCM Polyrate Specifications C. L. Gilmore recommended in his memo of June 23 that the Specification Committee should consider reducing the VCM polyrate specification to 78 from 80. Such a change at this time is highly unlikely because it would first be necessary to lower the Firestone specification. Fortunately, we have a tacit understanding with Springfield that they will take 7896 polyrate material, rather than have us lower %production capacity. As long as this situation prevails, and we do not make excessive amounts of 78 polyrate material, we are in no real bind. Of course, the situation would change if the production of low polyrate material increased to the point where Firestone shipments would be affected. ,During a phone call on Thursday, June 30 Bill Wiese discussed this matter. He stated that lowering the polyrate might help Monsanto, but none of our customers would look faVorably upon such a change. He feels we should approach Firestone, only if low polyrate material is produced in large quantities. However, before we approach Firestone, he believes we should obtain some experimental evidence of the effect of low polyrate on the Firestone polymer viscosity test. Bill says that Firestone relies on this viscosity test even more than on the polyrate test. If we can show that the viscosity test is not affected by the low polyrate, he feels he ean sell Firestone on a change in the specifications. If you believe that the polyrate spec will have to be lowered eventually, you might want to arrange to obtain the information Bill Wiese suggests. (He said Bill Yate3 knows about the viscosity test.) Meanwhile, it appears best to continue under the present arrangement. CBY 1110520 JGM/tb RSV0030944