EDITORIAL
Editor: Russell F. Christman WASHINGTON EDITORIAL STAFF Managing Editor: Stanton S. Miller Assistant Editor. Julian Josephson Assistant Editor: Lois R. Ember MANUSCRI PT REV1EWI NG Manager: Katherine I . Biggs Assistant Editor: David Hanson MANUSCRIPT EDITING Associate Production Manager: Charlotte C. Sayre Assistant Editor: Gloria L. Dinote GRAPHICS AND PRODUCTION Production Manager: Leroy L. Corcoran Art Director: Norman Favin Artist: Gerald M. Quinn
Advisory Board: f’. L. Brezonik, Joseph J. Bufaiini, Arthur A. Levin. James J . Morgan, Charles R . O’Melia, Sidney R. Orem, Frank P. Sebastian, J-ohn H. Seinfeld, C. Joseph Touhiil, Charles S Tuesday Published by the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCiETY 1155 16th Street. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Executive Director: Robert W. Cairns BOOKS AND JOURNALS DIVISION John K Crum, Director Virginia E Stewart, Assistant to the Director Charles R . Bertsch, Head, Editorial Processing Department D . H. Michael Bowen, Head, Journals Department Bacil Guiley, Head, Graphics and Production Department Seldon W Terrant, Head, Research and Development Department Marion Gurfein, Head, Circulation Development ADVERTlSl NG MANAGEMENT Centcom. Ltd. For offices and advertisers, see page 692
Sludges: there are options This is a turbulent time for sludge processors. What to do with sludges, the man-made by-products of 20th century technology, has plagued managers of industrial operations since the 20th century began. Presumably, if and when riable solutions appear for this age-old dilemma, all would start using them. Well, a number of processes are available: many of them are discussed in an outlook story. The choices take a number of different forms. Some are throwaway processes. Here the oozing materials are immobilized, put in place in landfill or used in construction activity or roadbed preparation. Others are reprocessing processes. Here, as in the PAT report, sludge materials from an industry are reprocessed, and the recovered valuable material(s) is put to use right back in the industrial operation that generated the sludge material in the first place. The last and perhaps futuristic approach is reprocessing and reconversion of the material for use in a different industry from that in which it was generated. Here, for example, would be the reconversion of electric utility scrubber wastes being changed into fertilizer material. Already, some are beginning to refer to these approaches as first generation, second generation, and third generation sludge processes. A number of processes in each of the three categories is available. Obviously, the hurdle in the use of any sludge processing technology is economics. No matter what happens, one has to pay for whatever one does to sludge. Whether one pays in the transportation chargesassuming that the landfill or company site is available-or treatment, these are the choices. It would seem that sludge conversion faces an uphill struggle similar to that of its “poor relation” environmental cousin, resource recovery. Some environmental watchers foresee an end to this sludge processing dilemma in the nearterm. Others stand back and observe. To all we can only comment, get in there and do something about it in your daily industrial activity!
Please send research manuscripts to Manuscript Reviewing, feature manuscripts to Managing Editor. For author’s guide and editorial policy, see June 1975 issue, p9ge 547, or write Katherine I. Biggs. Manuscript Reviewing Office. ES&T
Volume 9, Number 7, July 1975
613
