Document xjM04MRrvrG7E1wzD94DVzYgJ

March 8, 1940 Mr. F. S# Shepard Second &cuu;ii Oil Company 26 Broadway Hew York City Hew York Dear Mr* Shepard: Mr* 0* B Lewis of* the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation has informed me of your interest in talking with me at an early date about the use of proportioneer equipment. Mr. Lewis has stated that you are very well satisfied with the operation of the equipment at East St.Louis* It was his Impression that you were anxious to extend the use of this equipment to other plants* I should bo very glad to see you and discuss this matter with you at an early date, and I hope this can he don scene time soon when I am in Hew York. I will let you know either directly or through Mr* Lewis when I expect to be there, and I shall try to suit my convenience to ycurs* Meanwhile I should be loss than frank if I did not repeat what I hav said before in this connection# From the point of view of a general program of safety in the handling of Ethyl Fluid and the blonding of leaded gasoline# I am ex ceedingly skeptical about this proportioneer equip ment* It has# I believe# certain fundamentally ob jectionable qualities* and in addition there may be other difficulties in connection with its use which only time and experience oan reveal* With these ideas in mind# I should be reluotant indeed to take the responsibility for approving the use of this typo of equipment. I am qpite willing to be convinced by ex perience# but I think it is fair to say that present experience does not entitle any of us to an opinion as tb the adequacy of this equipment for the purpose for which it was intended over any long period of time. If we should find that the use of this type of equipment eliminates certain hazards which exist at the present time# without augmenting other hazards and without introducing any new ones, I shall bo the first to recommend Its use* If, on the other hand. It does introduce certain new hazards without materially influencing others, I shall continue to be unalterably opposed to its use* I should say in this connection that the mere convenience associated with the use of such equipment can not be regarded as an adequate basis for its use for this purpose. You may draw the conclusion from this note that I am not completely O O laded about the U3e of this equipment* I shall have to pload guilty to that accusation for* as I have indicated above, there are fundamentally objectionable qualities to this type of equipment which make it absolutely necessary that it should prove its own case beyond any peradventure* We aro not at liberty to change from a type of mixing which has demonstrated over a period of years that it i3 safe, into one which may have definitely hazardous features beyond those which can actually bo seen as a matter of principle* This is, I believe, not a question of anyonefa individual or technical shill, nor it is a question of loyalty to anyone *s ideas or point of view* It is purely a question cf relative cafofcy and in my opinion it can not be decided on any other basis* The proportioneer people have in one or two instances attempted to discuss tills question with no on the basis of the use of modern engineering methods* Such an argument is irrelevant and impertinent since, us I repeat, we are concerned only with one thing, the development of the maximum security in the handling of an intrinsically dangerous product* Sincerely yours. RAK:is Robert'' A* Kehoe,.if.b. K 0022757