Document rDg7aJxJeKpaVwOrxKbwqEdq

July 2, 1951 AIR MAIL Mr. C. L. Risso-GIll The Associated Ethyl Company Ltd. Artillery House, Artillery Row London, S.W.l ... Dear Charlie Thanks for your letter of June 5 j to which I have been slow in replying. However, I am leaving for a vacation for about a month, and It seems advisable to get an answer off to you without further delay. You may well imagine that I have been somewhat swamped in attempting to clear up many things before taking a trip. V i t h respect to the Du Pont "Tank Talk," I have not considered this to be a very significant piece of work. Perhaps I have a jaundiced eye toward such presentations of information. If so, I sjiould be told and, therefore, I would appreciate any comments that you may make on the usefulness and applicability of this booklet. As you may well imagine, some of the people in Ethyl Corporation have felt that this was a clever and useful move on the part of Du Pont and that we should do something to counter I t . To this I reply mentally "nonsense," but that does not answer the problem. Vith specific reference to your question, I may s a y .that we do not, and never have, insisted upon the use of masks on the part of men who are handling sludge outside of the tank. The situation in this country is a little different from your oyn, as you know, since, generally speaking, we have a man on hand to decide whether the mask should be worn or not. If one is dealing with a particularly disadvantageous situation, the mask would be worn. Under ordinary circumstances they would not be worn by men working outside of the tank, unless the work was concentrated in such a way that they were more or less continuously exposed via the respiratory route. The fact of the matter is that the risks of handling sludge outside the tank, when reasonable precautions are taken to a void exposure by inhalation, are rather Insignificant, and would reach significance only if one was dealing with a group of me n who Were engaged in this york regularly as a part of their ordinary job. That is [to say, cumulative lead poisoning could occur, but it is most unii; rely that acute lead poisoning, as a consequence of a single experience lasting for a few days at a time, would result in difficulty Our reason for the present version of your regulations in tha regard, was that in the absence of supervision, It would not be pc;ssible to anticipate when serious danger might exist, and therefore it was wise to take these additional precautions. Certainly they ar 3 not regularly needed, 0000482 Ilf Mr. C. L. Risso-Gil'l- (2) - July 2, 1951 and certainly experience In this country has demonstrated that they are not needed. On the other hand, the elimination of this regulation on your part, might result in your meeting a significant difficulty in some part of the world and thereby being subject to criticism for relaxing precautions which for some time have shown themselves to be satisfactory. If you feel that this is worthy of further discussion, because of practical situations, please do not hesitate to follow up. I am sure you would not be taking a serious risk in terms- of numbers of difficulties. I am not sufficiently 3ure that there would be no difficulty to suggest that you might eliminate this regulation altogether I shall be glad to consider it further with you on the basis of any information you may wish to pres e n t . At present, however, if you are having no difficulty in enforcing the thing, and if you are not creating a great inconvenience, I should be disposed to leave the matter as it i s . Sincerely yours, RAK ef Dictated but not read. Rober t" A .' Ke'hoe,''M . D . K 000O4S3