An Special Report ES=T
1.
he dimensions of the nation’s solid waste problems are so often quoted in the press that the public may be forgiven for becoming numbed by the array of figures. For instance: An estimated 7 million automobiles are junked each year, In 1980, each person in the U S . is expected to be producing 8 pounds of solid waste every day ( a figure that represents only wastes collected by municipal and private agencies). The numbers are indeed formidable (see chart), and, worse, the basic problems linger on. Solid waste disposal practices have always lagged behind methods to abate water and air pollution. The gap may, if anything, have widened in the past few years as the nation started to spend lots of money to come to grips with air and water pollution. Solid waste disposal, in contrast, has been the poor relation when funds were being doled out. The federal agencies involved with solid wastethe Bureau of Solid Waste Management in HEW and the Bureau of Mines in Interior-have, however, been performing a largely unheralded behindthe-scenes job of upgrading approaches to the disposal and utilization of solid wastes. The introduction of a new sophistication-both technical and conceptual-into the solid waste field has the potential of revolutionizing one of the most hidebound aspects of pollution 384 Environmental Science & Technology
SOLID 3 major sources contribute 1.5 billion tons/year of solid wastes million tons/year
~
110
data for 1967 source: “Solid Waste Management” by Rolf Eliassen
control. That current disposal methods are, to say the least, crude and wasteful in themselves, is being recognized by those in the field, if not by the public at large. Most current waste disposal practices do not even attempt to recover any of the potential values in solid waste. Landfilling, the singlemost prevalent method of disposing of municipal refuse in the U.S. demonstrates the prevailing public attitude to waste-it’s useless stuff, so get rid of it anywhere and anyhow (as long as you don’t spend money doing it). The fact is that municipal refuse is far from valueless. It contains wood fibers (from paper), glass, textile, and
various metals. Many of the metals are present in concentrations larger than those in the ores from which the metals are extracted commercially. The trouble is that technology to recover values has never been developed, largely because it always has been deemed cheaper in the short term to mine the ores-trees, bauxite mines, copper deposits, and the rest-and not the waste. Municipal wastes in the U S . have a high caloric value and can easily be burned, thus much reducing their bulk, but there are only about 300 municipal incinerators in the whole country. Even then, 30% of these are
inadequately controlled from an air pollution standpoint. It is entirely feasible that the heat released in an incinerator could be used to raise steam-several European countries are already doing this-but the U.S. has been very slow to follow suit. One reason, of course, is that it hasn’t had tothere has always been room to spare, at least up to now, to dump the waste on the land. Even solid wastes that do not contain large quantities of a most desirable component are potentially useful. A matter of attitude
What marks the current approaches of concerned professionals to solid wastes is a steadfast refusal to see them necessarily as wastes. In the next few pages, ES&T sets out to explore the new attitudes to solid wastes, how they can be disposed of effectively, how they can be utilized, and why social and economic pressures are still preventing a completely sound and rational approach, which perhaps only legislation can foster. Much of what is currently known was discussed at two recent conferences attended by ES&T staff-the Second Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium at IIT Research Institute ( IITRI) , cosponsored by IITRI and the U S . Bureau of Mines; and the National Industrial Solid Wastes Management Conference, cosponsored by the University of Houston and the Bureau of Solid Waste Management. Volume 4, Number 5, May 1970 385
An Special Report ES&T
SOLID WASTES Disposal Still paces waste. management programs
I h e r e is no doubt that reuse and recycle are getting increased attention in solid waste management programs, and rightly so (see page 388). But much of the enthusiasm that usually accompanies discussions of advanced processes for waste reclamation tends to overshadow a vital point: Much progress can still be made by more e€fective use of existing technology, and for the short term, at least, many of the solutions to solid waste problems will be through programs that still rely heavily on disposal. A case in point is last month’s National Industrial Solid Waste Management Conference (NISWMC)held at the University of Houston (Tex.) where, predictably enough, the recycle and reuse philosophy was very much in evidence. Sen. Caleb Bobbs (Re-Del.) appropriately titled his keynote address “Resource Recovery: The New Dimension in Solid Waste Management,” and called for a national policy to provide incentives for the use of secondary raw materials. And, indeed, much of the meeting was devoted to the general subject of upgrading waste material. But just as well represented were those who see the need for more efficient utilization of present technology-most of which is based on disposal. Richard Vaughan, director of the Bureau of Solid Waste Management (BSWM),for instance, noted that less than one quarter of the country has solid waste programs which are inadequate in terms of what is possible today. Although updating technology is one BSWM goal, technology is not the greatest problem, according to Vaughan, who adds, “Dramatic improvements are possible with existing technology.” This is perhaps why the administration’s proposal for solid waste legislation would limit grants to 386 Environmental Science & Technology
those for planning-in other words, for making better use of today’s tools. Collection
By far, the most expensive phase of solid waste management is collection and transportation, which, by most estimates, account for about 80% of the costs. Yet, according to some observers, this area may be perhaps the most ineffectively used of all. Richard Stevens, president of University Byproducts, Inc. (Sun Valley, Calif.), in assessing future requirements for collection and storage systems at one of the NISWMC sessions, maintained that mechanized equipment available today is adequate and presents no major problem, but that its utilization is far from efficient. The reasons are complex, but Stevens did cite a few examples. For instance, optimum use of collection equipment is often thwarted by obsolete highway codes. “Loading capacity of most collection and compaction equipment is usually far greater than that legally allowable,” Stevens said, and to achieve maximum efficiency, waste contractors must be allowed to use maximum loading capacity. Another drawback Stevens cited is unwillingness of health agencies and the public in general to accept such innovations as once a week collection, rather than twice weekly, and curbside service instead of back yard pickup. The recent introduction of disposable paper and plastic refuse sacks has rendered health codes obsolete in terms of a need for frequent collection, and once a week collection of bagged refuse at curbside would lower collection costs dramatically with little or no inconvenience to homeowners. Regarding nonresidential wastes, Stevens bemoaned the fact that in designing new industrial and commercial
centers, architects seem insensitive to waste management requirements, with the result that refuse handling is invariably the last facility allowed for in design. Stevens suggested that architects and architectural engineers be induced to attend waste management courses to make them professionally aware of this important aspect. On somewhat the same theme, Harry Kletter, president of Industrial Services Co. of America (ISA), outlined for another session of the NISWMC what may well be the wave of the future in solid waste management-regionally integrated facilities for handling both municipal and industrial solid wastes on a contract basis. ISA now operates a prototype central waste disposal facility at Louisville (Ky.), and has just recently begun construction of a one million pounds per day plant at Dearborn (Mich.). The $600,000 plant is being built on land leased from Ford Motor Co. and will handle wastes from Ford and a number of smaller industries and municipalities in the area. Both the Louisville and Dearborn units are true processing plants, where wastes are classified and salvaged where possible and residues compacted or shredded for disposal. But more important is that this type of central operation is one way to take advantage of modern waste collection and processing techniques, most of which depend on economics of scale for efficiency. Landfill
The most predominant method of disposal in the US. is landfill, which at present accommodates over 90% of the nation’s solid waste at an estimated 12,000 individual landfill sites. Bringing existing technology to bear on this method of disposal will be one aim of guidelines soon to be published by BSWM and which were outlined at the
Houston meeting by BSWM’S D. R. Brunner. If nothing else, the guidelines will highlight the fact that this seemingly prosaic disposal method does present formidable problems. Some wastes generate noxious gases, some are leached by ground waters, and others are unstable if fill is not properly compacted. Both site selection and waste characteristics are important to the extent that the only generalization from BSWM’S guidelines is likely to be that each landfill proposal must be considered individually. Apart from proper landfill management, the major problem with landfill as a disposal method is public aversion to the general concept of land disposal. Houston’s mayor, Louis Welch, stated the civic official’s problem succinctly in a welcoming address to the Houston conference: “Everyone wants us to pick up their garbage, but no one wants us to put it down.” Mass media usually offer no relief for the mayor’s plight; press coverage of a controversy in Houston which peaked the week of the conference over site selection for a badly needed new landfill continually referred to the facility as a garbage dump. Such terminology is unfortunate, belittling as it does the fact that landfill in most major urban areas must conform with accepted sanitary codes. EA’S Kletter offers one solution: “The trouble with landfills is that, in most cases, they’ve been jammed down people’s throats.” This need not be so, maintained Kletter, who pointed out that sound landfill operations can be successfully promoted on the basis of the economic value of land reclaimed for commercial o r recreational purposes. Incineration
Nevertheless, increasingly restrictive land use patterns will continue to limit landfill availability, and much of the slack will have to be taken up by incinerators. Here again, a well developed body of technology is already available, but attendees of the NISWMC were given few glimpses of the latest wrinkles in incinerator concepts. For instance, West Virginia University’s Richard Bailee discussed the concept of fluidized beds for waste combustion (ES&T, July 1968, page 495) and a panel of equipment manufacturers described applications where the process has been reduced to practice in the incineration of sewage
sludge, food industry wastes, and refinery sludges. All agree that widescale application of fluid bed waste incineration hinges on adequate feeding mechanisms for handling anything as heterogeneous as trash and municipal refuse. Other papers also indicated advances in incinerator technology will be tied to innovations in waste handling techniques. Tom Rosenberg of International Incinerator Co. outlined design considerations for building the highly successful rotary kiln incinerator for Dow Chemical’s central waste disposal facility at Midland (Mich.). Rosenberg pointed out that the major design problem was one of accommodating waste from the manufacture of 1100 products at 600 buildings on a 4500 acre site, plus in-plant trash and refuse. In the design of the kiln feeder, wastes were classified, according to handling techniques, into those that could be fed to the kiln directly (trash and scrap plastic), pumpable wastes (liquid and semiliquid tars and oils), and 55 gallon drums of miscellaneous liquid wastes. Separate feeders were developed for each category; before feeding, each category is further classified according to heat content, and feed rates are integrated to allow uniform heat releases within the rotary kiln. Rosenberg points out that this integrated incinerator concept should have wide application in industrial waste disposal, and his firm, together with Dow, is cooperating on a similar incinerator design for the 3M Co. One major innovation in municipal incinerators-a 260 ton per day unit designed for the city of Buffalo by Leonard S . Wegman Co. and put into operation last year-was also described at the meeting. According to company president Leonard S . Wegman, the main design objective was to establish a high efficiency unit to accommodate the increased heat content typical of today’s municipal waste. This was accomplished with a three-level grate feeder, a secondary combustion chamber to accommodate slow burning refuse, a complex five-stage combustion air control system, and high efficiency exhaust emission control devices. But the most striking feature of the incinerator is a unique feed mechanism-a huge crushing unit capable of shredding refrigerator size appliances, large tree logs, and other bulky objects. Wegman pointed out that it was nec-
essary to contract with a foreign firm for the $860,000 shredder, since units of that size were not available at the time from U.S. manufacturers. He added, hopefully, that “the next time around,” suitable units would probably be available here. Wegman also described what is probably the most ambitious incinerator design concept yet proposed in the US.-a 6000 ton per day unit to be built at New York City’s $275 million East River Environmental Protection Center on the site of the former Brooklyn Navy Yard. Aside from the size of the unit, there are a number of other impressive features. The incinerator will be coordinated, to the maximum extent possible, with a 70 million gallon per day sewage treatment plant to be built at the same location, on such things as use of the incinerator to dispose of sewage sludge and the sewage effluent as a transport medkm for the incinerator fly ash handling system. The incinerator will also be used to generate steam which will be used by Con Edison’s adjacent Hudson steam generating plant. Advantage will be taken of its riverfront location, incoming refuse will be handled by barge, as will the outgoing incinerator resi-
Volume 4, Number 5, May 1970 387
An Report ES=T Special
SOLID WASTES
due. Each individual incinerator burner will have a capacity of 750 tons per day-larger than any yet builtbut Wegman foresaw no difficulty in scaling up existing units to this size. Ocean disposal
The predominance of landfill and incineration as disposal techniques usually overshadows other disposal methods of increasing significance such as ocean disposal. According to David P. Smith, director of Applied Oceanography at Dillingham Corp., a BSWM sponsored study shows that in 1968, some 48 million tons of solid wastes were disposed of at sea, at an estimated cost of $29 million. The largest single waste category disposed of in this way was harbor dredging spoils; but other major categories include industrial wastes, sewage sludge, refuse, radioactive wastes, construction debris, and such miscellaneous wastes as military explosives and chemical wastes. Smith emphasized that, contrary to a popular assumption, no significant amounts of raw municipal refuse are dumped at sea. The Dillingham survey showed that the number of current disposal sites
are about equally spaced among the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coast areas. Ocean disposal costs vary widely with the type of waste handled, and range from a low of 40 cents per ton for dredging spoils to as much as $15 per ton for explosives and containerized materials that require special handling. Location of disposal areas is usually determined by the depth considered safe for a particular waste, and most are located between 15 and 125 miles offshore. Pipeline
Barge transportation is invariably used for all wastes; but the possibility of applying pipeline technology for safe oceanic disposal is being considered. Daniel Pindzola, one of a group of workers at the Franklin Institute studying the feasibility of piping concentrated waterborne solid wastes to sea from the Philadelphia area, told the Houston meeting, “Preliminary studies indicate that a pipeline would be the preferred method for delivery of these wastes for both technical and economic reasons.” The pipeline concept the Franklin Institute group has developed envi-
sions collection of all suitable wastes within 25 miles of Philadelphia and piping them from a location near Camden, N.J., across that state to a site near Atlantic City. From there an 80 mile undersea pipeline would lead to an outfall 1200 feet below the ocean surface on the slope of the continental shelf, where preliminary studies show existing currents would provide rapid, adequate dilution and dispersion of the wastes. The Franklin Institute study showed that about 16 m.g.d. of waste (10% average solids content) in the area would be amenable to pipeline transport. Dredging spoils would account for three quarters of the total volume; other types of wastes considered in the study include organic and inorganic sewage sludges, industrial wastes such as acids, salts, and miscellaneous chemicals, and incinerator ash. Costs of the system are still speculative, but Pindzola estimates a capital outlay of approximately $100 million for the point-to-point delivery system. Operational costs would appear to range between $2.00 to $2.50 per 1000 gallons, about half the average cost of barge transportation.
Utilization The unrealized dream of resource reuse
U
tilization of solid wastes involves what is almost a contradiction in terms-using what has always been regarded as useless. Yet, many solid wastes are indeed useful and somemunicipal refuse being the standout example-are literally untapped gold mines. Utilization, as the term is generally used, includes recycling and reusing at least some components of the waste. Utilization also covers those situations in which a waste material can be, in its entirety, converted to a use388 Environmental Science & Technology
ful (and thus salable) product. Whether, in fact, direct use of the waste product, reclaiming of certain values in it, or recycling of the waste is actually attempted depends on several factors: The chemical content of the waste. If no especially valuable element or compound is found in the waste in sufficiently large concentration, then reclaiming values may be out of the question. Physical and mechanical properties. Wastes that are not suitable for
reclaiming of values may nevertheless possess quite suitable ceramic or refractory properties which are amenable to straightforward manufacture of building materials or to other (generally lower value) uses. Where the waste accumulates with respect to markets that might be found for it or for products reclaimed from it. Transportation costs may be so high as to override any potential value from the waste. General economic factors. These are, of course, the overall forces which
dictate, at present, whether a waste is thought of as anything but a waste. It is partly in the hope that economic factors will change-that the ground rules might be altered by legislation or in some other way-that efforts are now being directed toward utilization of solid wastes. Mineral wastes
The mineral processing industry produces an incredible amount of solid waste-more than 1 billion tons every year. The main reason for this is that the ores of most desirable metals are very lean in the metals. For example, currently mined copper ores con tain less than 1% Cu, and even the much touted Minnesota taconite iron ore contains only 30% iron. The spent ores from mineral processing, known as tailings, accumulate as huge piles of minerals that generally consist of the carbonates and silicates of calcium, magnesium, aluminum, and other metals, together with silica and other oxides. The exact proportions in which the compounds exist vary from mine to mine and from industry to industry. What all the piles do have in common are their sheer size and their nuisance value to the mineral processor. Because of the fine nature of some of the particles typically found in spent ores, the piles must, if they are not utilized, be stabilized in some way, perhaps by stimulating vegetative growth (see ES&T, August 1969, page 717). Some progress, however, has been made in fabricating useful products from several mineral wastes: Blast furnace slag (and, to a lesser extent, steel slag) is being used in the construction industry as an all-purpose aggregate for road building and in all manner of concrete products. Indeed, this particular material is the preferred product and the steel industry cannot make enough of it. Fly ash from power stations is just beginning to make inroads into the markets for aggregate which blast furnace slag has been in for years (see Es&T, March 1970, page 187). Coal ash slag can be made into an acceptable mineral wool, claimed by workers at West Virginia’s coal research laboratory to be Comparable to commercially produced insulating fibers. Inorganic sludges from pulp and paper manufacturing and phosphate slime from fertilizer making can be
made into gypsum wallboard, a use that takes advantage of the calcium sulfate content of the waste. Taconite iron ore tailings have been converted into a foamed building material of controlled density in studies at IIT Research Institute, and a similar potential use exists for the tailings resulting from copper, lead, and zinc mining. Coal mining wastes can be used for ground stabilization and have potential use in highway antiskid and shoulder materials. Gold mine wastes, which are siliceous in nature, are convertible to calcium silicate for building block material, although this use is hindered by the fact that silicate brick is used to a lesser extent in the U S . than in Europe. Copper tailings show promise for the manufacture of ceramic products like specialty tiles, and these tailings, like those from other siliceous sources, can be made into glass if the iron sulfide is removed, according to a University of Utah study. Despite all the promise, some hard facts have to be faced by those hoping for full utilization of mineral wastes. Says Bureau of Mines metallurgist Karl Dean, “A sober assessment of the complexity of mineral waste problems suggests that only a part of the wastes now generated can be utilized.” The fact is that raw materials for the products in markets that waste materials might enter are already very cheap, and this economic factor is compounded by the fact that most mines are far from potential markets. (Iron
and steel works, on the other hand, are usually located in densely populated areas.) What is more, any products made from waste must be of high quality. In those cases where the waste product has been successfully utilized, blast furnace slag being the outstanding example, the product has been the best choice in the marketplace from both quality and price aspects. Munlcipal wastes
Because of the character of most municipal wastes in the US.-their large concentrations of such useful and valuable components as iron, copper, and glass-these wastes are most logically thought of as good candidates for reuse. The residue from minicipal incinerators, for example, contains 50% glass and 30% iron, with much smaller quantities of nonferrous metals. Despite the apparently attractive nature of municipal wastes from a composition viewpoint, relatively little reclamation is actually carried out. The main reason for this has been attributed by Richard Vaughan, director of the Bureau of Solid Waste Management, to the high cost of separating components into different categoriesglass, paper, etc. Where the waste material is relatively homogeneous in nature, as it is in the scrap metal industry, a large business exists. If some way could be found to perform the necessary segregation at the source-by the housewife in her kitchen, for example-the economics of municipal waste reclamation would be drastically altered. But Vaughan is pessimistic about the practicability Volume 4, Number 5, May 1970 389
An
Report ES&T Special
SOLID WASTES
of this approach and also points out that separate collection procedures for segregated wastes are more expensive than a single collection of a mixed waste. Consequently, BSWM is sponsoring studies of magnetic and other separation techniques. An air classification scheme developed at Stanford Research Institute already looks promising. Leo Weaver, general manager of the Institute of Solid Wastes of the American Public Works Association told the IITRI meeting that current trends in municipal waste disposal are discouraging, rather than encouraging, reclamation of values. Weaver (and other speakers, too) explained that increasing stringency of air pollution control regulations, together with the lack of steady markets, was encouraging a move away from incineration (which produces a concentrated residue) toward landfilling. Even the practice of salvaging values from garbage dumps is declining, as sanitary landfills are designed to be immune from disturbance. Nevertheless, municipal officials are still attracted to the idea of reclama-
tion in principle, even though practice has barely begun. So that while methods are being developed to do everything from reclaiming wood fibers from paper waste (by USDA in Wisconsin) to reusing waste glass as a road paving material, the basic problems linger on. A brighter picture characterizes efforts to reuse scrap metals. It is most surprising to learn that almost half the copper supply in the U.S. is recovered from scrap, and for lead the figure is more than 50%. In fact, what is called, by its practitioners, the secondary materials industry is an $8 billion a year business. Nor are plants in this industry small, backyard setups. More than half of the members of the National Association of Secondary Material Industries, Inc. had gross annual sales in excess of $3 million and almost as many had multiplant operations. But the industry nevertheless has a raft of problems, ranging from stricter air pollution control and beautification regulations to the widely fluctuating price of scrap in the marketplace. Ferrous scrap dealers are also hampered by the presence of copper in the
scrap steel derived from junked autos; excessive copper makes the steel unacceptable for blast furnace use. The scrap industry is becoming more technically sophisticated, but perhaps not quickly enough to guarantee the 100% recycling of scrap metals into the economy, which idealistic promoters of the utilization philosophy might like. Nor do projects, such as Reynolds Metals Co.’s aluminum can reclamation program (ES&T, November 1969, page 1157), worthy as they are, really do more than scratch the surface of the utilization problem. Future of utilization
In the near future, it appears as if utilization will merely be an ideal, and that approaches such as more sophisticated land disposal methods and incineration will command much of the technical attention and most of the dollars. But the time has to come when utilization will be a necessity. As Assistant Secretary of Interior Hollis M. Dole said at the IITRI meeting, “. . we are wasting resources-resources that we need right now and will need even more urgently in the future.”
.
Legislation Proposed laws may set future patterns 1
he new three R’s for effective solid waste management-recover, recycle, and reuse-were endorsed unanimously by municipal, academic, and industrial witnesses who testified recently on S. 2005, the Resource Recovery Act. Encompassing a three week round of hearings on ways to strengthen the nation’s solid waste management effort, the testimony now is being considered by the Senate Public Works Committee in executive session. As the hearings concluded, Sen. Jennings Randolph (D.-W.Va.), chairman of the committee, noted that some type 390 Environmental Science & Technology
of streamlined solid waste management is lacking. What is needed, Randolph noted, is a basic document through which new management policies can be determined. Certainly, some new legislation dealing with solid waste management will be enacted this Congressional season, but what shape the legislation will take is not at all clear at this time. There appear to be few technological limitations to reusing any of ioday’s solid wastes-paper, metal, glass, cans, and the like. So, the limitations are social, educational, and financial. In other words, the inducements or in-
centives to convince industry, government, and the public to take action are lacking. The suggestions offered by witnesses at the hearings ranged from educational antilitter campaigns to a massive commitment of federal funds to build disposal facilities in all needy areas, similar to the construction grants program for waste treatment facilities for water pollution control. Other indicators from the hearings run the gamut of possibilities, including the following: Imposition of a disposal fee on all items to be discarded-automobile
hulks, beverage cans, dress materials, cereal boxes, and the like. Perhaps, a fee of a penny per pound would be workable, as one consulting engineer suggested. An automobile weighing 3600 pounds would have a disposal fee of $36 included in its purchase price. Expansion in the disposal and reuse activities of all segments of the populace. Funds might be made available to local municipalities and communities for the demonstration of solid waste disposal techniques.
Dissemination of technical data on ways to reuse solid waste materials. Almost certainly, the federal research and demonstration activities of the Bureau of Solid Waste Management, the federal agency concerned with solid waste management, will be continued and possibly enlarged.
Amendment The National Commission on Materials Policy, an amendment to s. 2005 introduced by Sen. J. Caleb Boggs (R.-Del.) , if enacted, would re-
Legislative proposals for solid waste management S . 2005, t h e Resource Recovery Act Sixfold increase in federal Commitment a t a level of $800 million over a five year period Development of new methods t o reduce, reuse and recycle wastes Testing and demonstration of these new methods Grants for t h e construction of local and regional resource recovery and solid waste disposal facilities Recommendation of standards for solid waste disposal and collection systems * National materials inventory for more efficient use of resources S. 3469, Nixon administration’s proposal
-
Authority for t h e Council on Environmental Quality t o make studies and recornmendatioris O R reclamation a n d recycling of materials f r o m solid wastes Extension of t h e provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, specifying a continued research and demonstration program
quired an inventory of all metals in the solid waste throughout the country. While this amendment obviously is a logical prerequisite for any national policy on solid waste management practice, it might delay any commitment of construction funds if favored by the whole committee in executive session. To date, full-scale demonstrations of solid waste management concepts have not caught the public’s attention. Except for Reynolds Metals Co.’s pioneering effort to recover, recycle, and reuse aluminum beverage cans, industrial demonstrations are few. However, National Steel Corp.’s planned demonstration of recycling 25 tons of compacted steel cans is a step in the right direction. The full-scale demonstration is planned this month at its steel making plant (Weirton, W.Va.) , How convincing these demonstrations will be, only time can tell. In the earlier round of hearings, Nixon administration officials testified that no massive commitment of federal funds should be made available for the construction of disposal facilities (ES&T, November 1969, page 1160). Industry also appears to be opposed to any large-scale funding for construction grants of the conventional state-of-the-art or normal evolutionary type. As one industry spokesman noted, the granting of federal and state funds for construction of scrap pro-essing facilities might bring government entities into competition with private industry. Perhaps, more incentives and stricter regulations may be the means by which industry, government, and the public will be compelled to take action. One incentive might be the inclusion of the disposal fee in pending legislation. In the absence of federal leadership, one regulatory approach is state legislation. For example, Maryland already imposes a $5 charge every six months on all junked vehicles which are over seven years of age and which have been held six months or longer in the wrecker’s yard. Meanwhile, the lack of space for landfill operations, stricter state regulations, pending regulations on ocean dumping, and the increasing mounds of solid waste all put pressure on construction needs for solid waste disposal. Eventually, these facilities probably will be built. By that time, the recycling of all materials perhaps will be a national necessity. Volume 4, Number 5, May 1970 391
