EDITORIAL
Editor: Russell F. Christman WASHiNGTON EDITORIAL STAFF Managing Editor: Stanton S.Miller Assistant Editor: Julian Josephson Assistant Editor: Lois R. Ember MAN USCR I PT REV I EW I NG Manager: Katherine I. Biggs Assistant Editor: David Hanson
The waste is not for burying
MANUSCRIPT EDITING Associate Production Manager: Charlotte C. Sayre Assistant Editor: Gloria L. Dinote GRAPHICS AND PRODUCTION Production Manager: Leroy L. Corcoran Art Director: Norrman Favin Artist: Gerald M. Gmuinn
Advisory Board: P. L. Brezonik, Joseph J. Bufalini, Arthur A. Levin. James J. Morgan, Charles R . O'Melia, Sidney R. Orem, Frank P. Sebastian, John H. Seinfeld, C. Joseph Touhili, Charles S. Tuesday ~~
~
Published by the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCl ETY 1155 1 6 t h 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 Seidon W. Terrant, Head, Research and Development Department ADVERTISING MANAGEMENT Centcom, Ltd. For offices and advertisers, see page 488
On the contrary, solid waste is for burning. With shortages of energy, resources, and finances upon us-and likely to escalate-more and more people are coming to the realization that solid waste is not for landfilling. Now, contrary to earlier pronouncements, the name of the action is utilization. Of course, the rub comes with the awareness that no matter what you do with solid waste it costs money; money to transport it and money to bury it. But the argument goes that if you can recover the energy, the metals, the glass . . . well, then . . . it may be economically feasible to initiate or support a resource recovery operation. Resource recovery, the "buzz" phrase that was coined at the dawning of the environmental decade of the ~ O ' S is, still in vogue. A few utilities have found that solid waste can be processed for energy to be used in their electric generating operations. Others are beginning to look into the possibilities. This issue of €S&T highlights various aspects of this growth-oriented industry. Feature author Schulz tallies the costs and recoveries possible with today's processing technology; author Tillman reports on the experiences and uses of fuels generated from recycling operations and compares the fuel energy value of three leading processes. Finally, feature authors Tor0 and Weinstein report on the instrumentation and alarms that are needed for the proper processing of solid waste in either incinerators or pyrolyzers. What better way to reduce the volume of existing mounds of solid waste than by burning. And with the resource and energy credits possible, surely it makes even more sense to burn solid waste. We submit that resource recovery is a challenge that is being met. Perhaps not as enthusiastically as some would like, but certainly the progress must please others. In which camp are you? Any comments?
Please send research manuscripts to Manuscript Reviewing, ttrature manuscripts to Managing Editor. For author's guide and editorial policy, see June 1974 issue, page 549. or write Katherine I Biggs, Manuscript fqeviewing Office, ES&
r
Volume 9, Number 5, May 1975
395
