Document zokZG6D3kveaYKBe8bzpkg8zn

April 10, 1931 Mr. 0, E* Hunter, Sterling Oil Company* Kalenton, Pa. Dear Sir? Ifr. V?ebb of the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation has sent ae a copy of your communication of March 28 in regard to suits at Wocdsfield, Ohio, on account of leaking gasoline which had apparently contaminated well water. I am delayed in answering your letter by rea son of the fact that I was out of my office for more than a week* A circumstance such as the one you describe In your letter came to our attention some months ago, when a similar leak permitted seepage of gasoline through a somewhat loose and sandy soil, thus contaminating seriously the water of a nearby well, and producing a definite but not dangerous illness in an individual who made use of the water for drink ing purposes. The illness was chargeable only to the high gasoline content of the well water, which produced a very con siderable amount of stomach and intestinal irritation, with later vomiting, diarrhoea, and loss of weight. The patient recovered without serious consequences* In this instance, despite the fact that the water tasted strongly of gasoline and showed a considerable amount of gasoline when we obtained samples and tested them, the sick person had used the water and was undoubtedly ill from this cause- It is of some im portance to note that under the conditions that obtained, the lead in the gasoline was completely decomposed and pre cipitated out so that no lead; eould be found in the drinking water, This was sot therefor a case of lead intoxication, but of gasoline intoxication# ^ k j I cite the incident because It is entirely possible from the description of the cases in your letter, that a similar situation occurred* It is possible for the gasoline to travel considerable distances through proper kind of soil, and to grossly contaminate the water. In any case, even after considerable periods of time, the water should show the presence of gasoline if there was any considerable amount of contamination* I would consider it highly advlsable therefore, to look into the situation carefully, and to obtain sUiaples of the water, particularly from the surface of the well, and to determine whether or not any detectable 0013312 - KK;KV:KK.-. ' -vK K aK : G< H. Hunter #2 quantity of gasoline was present. As a means of preventing any fraud in the matter I would suggest that samples of water be taken by taking a first sample, then by pumping out considerable quantities of the water and then taking other samples. The cases which you describe may not be in any way comparable to the one which I cite, and there may be no foundation for the claims which are made. However, it was .felt in the former case that there was probably no reason for the complaint, and it was only after the examina tion of the water and the finding of definite quantities of gasoline that the gasoline company concerned became convinced of the existsues of a leak, which, when carefully investigated was found to have permitted the escape of several hundred gal lons of gasoline over a period of some three or four months. I should think, therefore, it would be highly advisable to obtain all of the facts in the matter in order to determine whether yasoli.no actually contaminated the water. There would be very little difficulty in defending suit against the claim of lead poisoning. It might be somewhat more difficult in . the case of the gasoline, and would be possible, I believe, only on the basis of ascertained facts. In the latter case, it would not be expected that serious illness would be pro duced or that injury would bo prolonged after the elimination of the exposure to gasoline. Very truly yours, RAK:EJ 0010313