Document RJGxEnbaMoXQ1mmb4yxVbeZy8

Mr. S. Cuffe xr.r.mr. vli/ioiaydq s Jo noiJqobA ".sodiV* soiJeb o:f o Environmental Protection Agency ESED, MD13' ' ; -^ Research' Triangle ParJc'/TN.'cV 277lff ortd Jo veiv nl Jo rroid&moJ bnnrjnoTtcrz zJBiqoozoiZiitn oldcaobsl "Deaf Mr" CUffe3hd lodinosi 03 nxmsbt. bar. noidosrib ,r As a followup to our recent meeting with Congressman Oberstar on June 19, ^1 ram enclosing copies of<a document entitled, "Critique of Provisional Methodology of Airborne Asbestos Concentrations* by R.J.Lee and D.M. Scott. This critique andvtfie,general question of the. validity of the EPA Provisional Methodo.logy for asbestos identification were ,discussed.:witfi,,tfr'^Magman (EPA), G.H. Wood (EPA), R.M. Fisher (USS) _and_*nrj^self ^op~jjiugust 23, 1978. At that time, R.M. Fisher agreed to'summarize'our tinders tanding of the discussion, which he did in a letter to J. Wagman (attached). I believe the problems with the "provisional method" as well as the needed modifications are summarized in that letter and in our Critique. During our meeting with you. Dr. Cooper summarized the epidemiological data on asbestos and nonasbestos amphiboles, emphasizing that, up until now, epidemiological results have not implicated nonasbestos amphibole in the production of asbestos disease. As Drs. Cooper and Coffin emphasized, this does not rule out some health effects. Rather, the results of past studies indicate that the asbestos and nonasbestos amphi boles have different potentials for tissue modification. Dr. Coffin's proposal for animal studies to quantify the relative effects using well-characterized samples should receive high priority. Regardlessof the eventual outcome of animal and epi demiological studies, further work on the analytical procedures USX-1097 Mr. S. Cuffe July 11, 1979 RJL/d be: C. F. Beukema K. M. .Fisher J. H. Gross W. e. Jackson W. C. Janes W. T. Lankford, Jr. C. W. Niemi - MOO H. W. Paxton R. R. Robb