(Letters, porn p . 756)
meeting was characterized by fierce controversy among polarized delegates. He states that a working group on ocean incineration was unable to reach consensus on several issues and that EPA suppressed a Science Advisory Board report. He further reports incorrect findings from the Oslo Commission. His statements leave an inaccurate impression of what actually took place in London. Many of the delegates who were present would be surprised to hear the meeting described as fiercely controversial. Certainly Greenpeace was strongly polarized, but to characterize the entire meeting as contentious is grossly misleading and does a disservice to the delegates of the contracting parties who labored diligently to reach agreement on many important matters at this meeting. To state that the informal working group reached an impasse is also inaccurate. The working group reached agreement on an international protocol for cleaning incinerator vessels and identified issues that should be considered by a separate group of experts on incineration at sea. The working group did exactly what it was charged to do. Rather than suppressing the report, EPA offered to provide copies of the complete final version to the IMO for distribution. At the time of the meeting, the report was being revised based on public comments on an earlier draft. The report has now been released; it deals with both ocean- and land-based incineration. Finally, the members of the Oslo Commission have not decided to ban ocean incineration by 1990, as stated by Bond. They have agreed to decide by 1990 whether or not to ban it, and if they do so, to set a date for the action. Because the Oslo Commission applies only to northern European countries, it would have been inappropriate for delegates from the U.S. to be present at its meetings. Bond misleads when he implies that this country’s absence is significant. Because EPA was in the midst of a formal rule-making procedure on incineration-at-sea regulations during the March meeting, we suggested that an intersessionalmeeting of a group of experts be convened after our rule-making process was complete. In that way, we could participate and provide all the significant documentation for our final decision. Tudor T.Davies Director, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
Contaminants in groundwater Dear Sir: It was a pleasure to read “Transport of organic contaminants in groundwater” (ES&I: May 1985, pp. 384-92).The authors are, indeed, considered among the most prestigious in the world today in the field of contaminant transport. Their capacity to describe an extremely complex subject in relatively basic terminology, using hypothetical examples of realistic chemical concentrations and flow rates, made the article extremely lucid and comprehensible, resulting in a significant educational benefit to your readers. So much of what we read today ranges too widely from scientific gobbledygook, emphasizing, if not dwelling upon, the complexities of what we do not know, to the other end of the spectrum, editorializing in a doomsday mode without competent technical support. The article establishes the complexity, explains the knowns and the unknowns, and, in a most objective way, points out why we’ll be faced with the remnants of past sins for many decades to come. On the other hand, we can all take some solace in the fact, as the authors point out, that modern technology and scientific understanding are advancing at a dramatic rate that will enable us to cope with these problems in a reasonably effective manner during the remainder of this century. Congratulations on a job well done. Jay H. k h r Editor and Publisher Ground Water and Ground Water Monitoring Review
Corrections The acknowledgments accompanying the text of “Transport of organic contaminants in groundwater” (ES&I: May 1985,p. 392) did not contain the names of those who reviewed the article for suitability as an ES&T critical review. They were James M. Davidson, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. 32611; Thomas L. Theis, Clarkson College of Technology, Potsdam, N.Y. 13676;and George E Pinder, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. 08540. The cover credit for EShT August 1985 should have read, Monty Calvert, Glens Falls Post-Star, Glens Falls, N.Y. “Photochemistry of petroleum in water” (ESdtT, July 1985, pp. 569-79) contained an error in Table 2 (p. 573): 7H-Dibenzo[o,g]carbazole should be 7H-Dibenzo[c,g]carbazole. There is also an error in the box on p. 574: 7HDibenzo[o,g]carbazoleshould read 7HDibenzo[c,g]carbazole.
Measure Btu$ Calories or Joules
tombustible’ samples.
A systems approach to meet individual needs Recognizing that the requirements for calorific tests range from rapid routine fuel tests to precise research measurements, Parr has developed a family of affordable apparatus from which the user can select a calorimeter system tailored to his particular needs. Four systems are offered, each built around the basic 1241 calorimeter which can be combined with any of three microprocessor controllers,giving the user: IA chance to select a system matched to his particular load and testing requirements. The ability to incorporate any presently installed Parr calorimetricequipment into an updated system. The opportunity to upgrade his calorimeter in the future without having to replace the entire set-up. All components in these systems are backed by a proven reputation for reliability and good service earned by the Parr Instrument Company during its more than eighty years of continuous manufacturing experience in this particular field. Full descriptions are provided in a new 24-page brochure, No. 1200. Please ask for a copy.
211 Fifty-third Street Moline, Illinois 61265 U.S.A. 3091762-7716 TWX 910-225-1753
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 19, No. 9, 1985 761
