south carolina solid waste management plan · sludge monofills, two are ash monofills, 46 are...
TRANSCRIPT
SOUTH CAROLINA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
November 21,1992
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
PREPARED BY: Melissa J . King
Division of Solid Waste Management Bureau of Solid & Hazardous Waste Management - SCDHEC
2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201
(803) 734-4943
EDITED, DESIGNED, AND PRODUCED BY: Haggard & White Marketing Communications
117 Park Springs Road Columbia, South Carolina 29223
(803) 782-9032
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
South Carolina Solid Waste Management Plan and general solid waste planning questions should be directed to the Regulation
Development and Planning Section of the Division of Solid Waste Management, BSHWM - SCDHEC at (803) 734-4943.
Requests for information on any regulatory requirements should be directed to the Regulation Development and Planning Section of
the Division of Solid Waste Management, BSHWM - SCDHEC at
0
(803) 734-4652. *
Requests for information on solid waste permitting should be directed to the Facility Engineering Section of the Division of
Solid Waste Management, BSHWM - SCDHEC at (803) 734-5169. .
Questions concerning the Solid Waste Management Grant Program should be directed to the Office of Solid Waste Reduction and
Recycling, BSHWM - SCDHEC at (803) 734-4954.
Requests for information on public education and on markets for recyclable materials should be directed to the Office of Solid
Waste Reduction and Recycling, BSHWM - SCDHEC at (803) 734-4957.
Questions concerning solid waste recycling and reduction should be directed to the RECYCLING HOTLINE at 1-800-76USE IT.
*
.
ON THE COVER
(Front Cover, Top) Good environmental habits must be taught early ... at home and (Below) at school as these middle school students leam from Rock Hill Clean & Green. (Front Cover, Left) Few would guess that this open field is really the capped Florence County Landfill, until (Back, Inset) they looked at the working face.
(Back Cover, Upper kf-Hand Corner) Children in the town of Fairfax do their part in the city’s recycling program. (Right) The Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority uses organic sludge as a potent fertilizer on their commercial sod farm. (Below) Waste-to-energy facilities, like one used by Charleston County, are highly efficient methods of waste reduction.
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY 9 Federal State Counties & Municipalities
DEMOGRAPHICS Population Economic Trends Land Use
21
EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 35 Generation & Characterization Collection & Transfer Treatment Disposal Public Education & Technical Assistance Recycling, Reuse, & Reduction Special Wastes, “Specific Wastes’’ Banned
Import & Export of Solid Waste Full Cost Disclosure
from Landfills, & Hazardous Wastes
FUTURE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 51 Generation & Characterization Collection & Transfer Treatment Disposal Public Education & Technical Assistance Recycling, Reuse, & Reduction Special Wastes, “Specific Wastes” Banned
Import & Export of Solid Waste Full Cost Disclosure
from Landfills, & Hazardous Wastes
GOALS, POLICIES, STRATEGIES, & BARRIERS 75
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION & PLAN REVISION 87
FISCAL IMPACT INFORMATION 91
APPENDICES
Appendix B -Permitted Landfills 97 Appendix A - Examples of Typical Local Ordinance Provisions
Appendix C - Open Dumps andor Landfills included IO1
Appendix D - How to Calculate Reduction &Recycling Efforts 103 Appendix E - County Statistics 107 Appendix F - List of Tables 154
95
on the State’s CERCLA Site Inventory
The cover of this report is printed on Evergreen Gloss SO percent recycled paper, 10 percent post-consumer waste. The text pages are Evergreen Matte, SO percent recycled paper, 10 percent post-consumer waste. Divider pages are Genesis Milkweed, a 100 percent recycled paper with at least 15 percent post-consumer waste.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
On May 27, 1991, the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act was signed into law. The preamble states that the Act is to establish the policy of the State regarding solid waste and to provide for the management of solid waste. To accomplish this, the Act charges the Department of Health and Environmental Control with the development of the South Carolina Solid Waste Management Plan. There will be an annual review and revision of the Plan as well.
The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act specifies the minimum information that must be included in the Plan. (See Table 3 in the LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY Chaptex) Because South Carolina’s solid waste management database is incomplete, the specifics and details of much of this information are not currently available. Therefore, using the information which is available, the Plan is designed to:
assess the State’s solid waste management practices prior to the Act delineate the directives of the Act devise strategies to meet the policies and goals of the Act
*propose solid waste management practices that will be appropriate to manage the State’s future solid waste.
In addition to a solid waste management plan for the State, the Act requires the preparation of solid waste management plans for each county andlor region. These plans must be submitted for review to the Department of Health and Environmental Control on or before February 28, 1994. Therefore, the Department of Health and Environmental Control will provide a guidance document to assist each county andlor region in the preparation of its solid waste management plan. This document, which will be an addendum to the South Carolina Solid Waste Management Plan, will be made available in January 1993.
This Plan is not intended to cover hazardous wastes generated by commercial and/or industrial businesses, domestic or industrial waste waters, radioactive wastes, fertilizers such as animal manure applied during normal agricultural operations, or refuse as defined by the South Carolina Mineral Act.
.
A brief synopsis of each chapter of the Plan is presented here. ~
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted by the United States Congress in 1976, establishes a framework for cooperation among federal, state, and local government in controlling the management of non-hazardous solid waste. This Act authorizes states to devise state-specific programs for the planning and implementation of the solid waste directives. In response to the federal solid waste management mandates and to a statewide concern about solid waste management, the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act was enacted on May 27,1991.
Under the 1976 South Carolina Code of Laws, counties and local governments have the authority to enact ordinances to institute local control over solid waste management in their areas. The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act reiterates this authorization and encourages counties and local governments to enact such ordinances as may be necessary to carry out their responsibilities under the Act.
DEMOGRAPHICS According to the 1990 census results, the population of South Carolina is 3,497,800. As anticipated, South Carolina’s population is not evenly distributed among or within the counties. (See Table 4 in the DEMOGRAPHICS Chapter.) Using the State’s and the counties’ population growth trends, South Carolina’s population in the year 2010 is projected to be 4,485,000. The statewide distribution of this population is proposed to be comparable to the distribution in 1990. However, there will be an inordinate immigration of permanent residents into the four coastal counties -Beaufort, Horry, Georgetown, and Jasper. (See Table 4 in the DEMOGRAPHICS Chapter.)
South Carolina has undergone a metamorphosis from an agrarian state to an industrial state. While initially related to a growing textile industry, South Carolina’s economic base has experienced diversification that has strengthened it with regard to national and international competition. In addition to diversification, the economic base of South Carolina is strengthened by an educated work force. In 1980, the median number of years of school completed by South Carolinians 25-years-old and over was 12.1. Although the average South Carolinian has completed high school, the average per capita income of $12,917 is below the Southeastern average of $14,460.
The current land use statistics reflect the overall rural nature of the State. (See Tables 7 through 11 in the DEMOGRAPHICS Chapter.) Specifically, 88 percent of the State has been classified as forest andor farmland. This percentage is higher than the national average which is 76 percent.
EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act states that each South Carolinian currently produces approximately 4.5 pounds of residential solid waste each day. With commercial, industrial, agricultural, governmental, and all other solid waste
5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
included, a total of 8 pounds of solid waste can be attributed to each South Carolinian per day. Assuming the generation rate of 8 pounds per person per day, South Carolina generated approximately 5 million tons of solid waste in 1990.
The majority of solid waste generated in South Carolina is collected in waste receptacles, or greenboxes, located at unmanned sites and transported to landfills for disposal. South Carolina has 152 permitted landfills of which 35 are cellulosic/construction waste landfills, 59 are domestic waste landfills, two are sludge monofills, two are ash monofills, 46 are industrial waste landfills, and eight are inert waste landfills. -
South Carolina is a rural state and unauthorized and illegal disposal of solid waste, such as open dumping, is a problem. While many counties have litter control programs, these programs have had only limited success.
FUTURE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT South Carolina will generate approximately 6.25 million tons of solid waste in the year 2000 and approximately 8 million tons in the year 2010. Control over the quantity and quality of this solid waste is essential to the effectiveness of the State’s future solid waste management program. Therefore, it i s suggested and/or directed by the Act that modifications be made to the existing solid waste management programs.
Suggested modifications include manned convenience stations, transfer facilities, and composting facilities. Modifications directed by the Act include municipal solid waste landfills that meet the minimum Federal Criteria, the installation of scales at municipal solid waste landfills and incinerators, and reduction and recycling programs. These modifications are designed to assist counties/regions in gaining command over the solid waste management issues in their areas.
With the passage of the Act, the South Carolina Legislature also increased the penalties associated with litter violations. The maximum fine for littering is now $1,000.
GOALS, POLICIES, STRATEGIES, & BARRIERS The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act designates a waste reduction goal of 30 percent and a waste recycling goal of 25 percent to which all of the State’s solid waste management endeavors must be directed. The Act also establishes policies to be incorporated into South Carolina’s solid waste management programs and to be used to achieve these goals.
Waste reduction is achieved through four activities: source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting. Therefore, efforts to meet the recycling goal will also assist in reaching the waste reduction goal. The success of these activities will be dictated by the incorporation of the following strategies: planning, public education, technical assistance, financial incentives, and setting an example.
-
-
Regionalization, although it does not directly contribute to waste reduction, does allow a group of counties to be more efficient and effective in the activities that accomplish waste reduction than it would be alone. Benefits of regionalization include economies of scale and improved comprehensive services. In accordance with the policies and goals of the Act, the Department of Health and Environmental Control encourages regionalization wherever feasible.
With regard to the goals and policies of the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act, there are many possible barriers. In general, the public mindset, the political hierarchy and history, the economic conditions, and difficulty in evaluating progress present the largest barriers.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION & PLAN REVISION One of the most important factors contributing to the acceptance of any planning document is public involvement. Prior to finalizing the Plan, the Department of Health and Environmental Control sought public input through scoping meetings, solid waste management surveys, preliminary comment on draft chapters, and public notice procedures. These same methods will be used to solicit public input for the annual revisions of the Plan.
Planning is a continuous process, not a final product. Therefore, revisions of the Plan and a description and evaluation of the progress made in implementing the Plan will be made annually. These annual revisions will target solid waste management data and strategies.
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act requires that the costs of preparing the Plan and of implementing the Act be identified. The total plan preparation cost is $79,191, and for fiscal year 1992 implementation costs were $413,328.
7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
8
L E G I S L A T I V E A U T H O R I T Y
From 1900 to the late 40's, although the industrial revolution was in full swing, no significant environmental legislation was written. The original federal Water Pollution Control Act was passed in 1948 and marked the beginning of a growing awareness for environmental legislation and action.
Federal
The federal government has enacted legislation and regulations that have imposed certain requirements upon the states, local government agencies, and owners and/or operators of solid waste management facilities. Table 1 in this chapter provides a listing of the federal laws that may impact the State solid waste management program.
The principle federal law relating to solid waste management is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976.'
There are two principle sections of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in which the states and local agencies participate in the program. The first of these is known as Subtitle C, Hazardous Waste. In this section, the United States Environmental Protection Agency established a national regulatory program to control the management of hazardous wastes. While the federal government was given primary responsibility to operate and enforce this program, South Carolina applied for and received authorization for these activities in 1985.
The second section is Subtitle D, Solid Waste. The intent of this section is to establish a framework for federal, state, and local government cooperation in controlling the management of non-hazardous solid waste. The federal role in this arrangement is to establish the general regulatory direction, by providing minimum
9 LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY Public Law 94-580 amended the original Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. Subsequently, this Act was 1
amended in 1978, 1980, and 1984, and was reauthorized by the United Slates Congress in 1991.
The principle federal law relating
to solid waste management is the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
nationwide standards for protecting human health and the environment, and to provide technical assistance to states for planning and developing their own environmentally sound waste management practices.
The actual planning and direct implementation of solid waste programs, however, remain largely state and local functions. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authorizes states to devise programs to deal with state-specific conditions and needs. Initially, the United States Environmental Protection Agency retains the authority to enforce the appropriate federal standards in a given state.
programs meeting the minimum Federal Criteria. However, this authority will be transferred to the states upon their adoption of -
South Carolina has comprehensive laws and regulations that define responsibilities and controls related to the management of solid wastes. The 1976 South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 44, Chapter 1, Section 140 establishes the role of the Department of Health and Environmental Control with regard to these matters. This article empowers the Department of Health and Environmental Control with the authority to promulgate and enforce rules and regulations for the protection of public health.
Table 2 in this chapter lists the laws, regulations, and executive orders that clarify the Department of Health and Environmental Control’s responsibilities and requirements for planning, construction, operation, and control of solid waste management facilities.
The principle state law that governs solid waste management is the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act of 1991. With the passage of this Act, South Carolina acknowledged a growing statewide concern about solid waste generation, management, and disposal. The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act delineates its purpose as the following:
1) to protect public health and safety, to protect and preserve the environment of the State, and to recover resources that have the potential for further usefulness
e
2) to establish and maintain a cooperative state program for providing planning assistance, technical assistance, and financial assistance to local governments for solid waste management
a
3) to require local governments to plan for and provide efficient, environmentally acceptable solid waste management services and programs
a
4) to promote the establishment of resource recovery systems that preserve and enhance the quality of air, water, and land resources
a
5 ) to ensure that solid waste is transported, stored, treated processed, and disposed in a manner adequate to protect human health, safety, and welfare and the environment
a
6) to promote the reduction, recycling, reuse, and treatment of solid waste, and the recycling of materials that would otherwise be disposed as solid waste
a
7) to encourage local govemments to use all means reasonably available to promote efficient and proper methods of managing solid waste, which may include contracting with private entities to provide management services or to operate management facilities on behalf of the local government, when it is cost effective to do so
e
8) to promote the education of the general public and the training of solid waste professionals to reduce the generation of solid waste, to ensure proper disposal of solid waste, and to encourage recycling
The principle state law that governs
solid waste management is the Solid Waste Policy and Management
Act of 1991.
11 LECISLATIVB AUTHORITY
0
9) to encourage the development of waste reduction and recycling programs through planning assistance, technical assistance, grants, and other incentives
0
10) to encourage the development of the State’s recycling industries by promoting the successful development of markets for recycled items and by promoting the acceleration and advancement of the technology used in manufacturing processes that use recycled items
11) to establish a leadership role for the State in recycling
0
efforts by requiring the General Assembly, the Governor’s Office, the Judiciary, and all State agencies to separate solid waste for recycling and by granting a preference in State procurement policies to products with recycled content
0
12) to require counties to develop and implement source separation, resource recovery, or recycling programs, or all of the above, and/or enhance existing programs so that valuable materials may be returned to productive use, energy and natural resources conserved, and the useful life of solid waste management facilities extended
0
13) to require local governments and state agencies to determine the full cost of providing storage, collection, transport, separation, treatment, recycling, and disposal of solid waste in an environmentally safe manner
14) to encourage local governments to pursue a regional
0
approach to solid waste management.
The Act empowers the Department Of Health and Environmental Control to develop the South Carolina Solid Waste Management Plan and specifies the
information is detailed in Table 3 in this chapter. Additionally, the Act charges the Department with the drafting and promulgation of regulations to govern the
minimum requirements that must be included in this Plan. This required -
-
management of used oil, waste tires, lead-acid batteries, yard trashkomposting, and white goods and to establish minimum standards for the construction, maintenance, operation, and closure of solid waste management facilities.
The predecessor of the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act of 1991 is the Pollution Control Act? The Pollution Control Act identifies the public policy of South Carolina as the maintenance of reasonable standards of purity of the air and water resources of the State, consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, maximum employment, the industrial development of the State, the propagation and protection of terrestrial and marine flora and fauna, and the protection of physical property and other resources.
Additionally, the Pollution Control Act provides the Department of Health and Environmental Control with the authority to abate, control, and prevent pollution of the environment. Under this broad authority, the Department has promulgated regulations that establish standards for virtually all waste types and waste disposal systems including but not limited to landfills, impoundments, and land application operations. These regulations are identified in Table 2 in this chapter.
Counties & Municipalities
South Carolina law' gives counties the authority to regulate the disposal of garbage or refuse and to establish landfills in their counties. Under this authority, many counties and cities enacted ordinances to institute local control over solid waste management in their areas.
Countieslregions will find it helpful to
enact additional ordinances to assist in the
fulfillment of their responsibilities as
defined in the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act.
Provisions from several of these ordinances are listed in Appendix A. They include topics such as the creation of multi-county solid waste authorities, the designation of the solid waste enforcement agency, the information required on a landfill permit application, the conditions for issuance of a variance to the requirements, the establishment and issuance of penalties, the establishment of tipping fees, the protection of the ordinance if a specific aspect is found unconstitutional, the development of standards for landfill operations, and the provision for prohibiting the littering of highways or any property not belonging to another person.
In response to the policies of, goals of, and regulations that are promulgated pursuant to the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act, local governments will find it helpful to enact additional ordinances, consistent with state law, to assist in the fulfillment of their responsibilities as defined in the Act.
13 LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
w Federal Programs
Affecting Solid Waste
Management
14
ENABLING LEGISLATION
RESOURCE CONSERVATION RECOVERY ACT SUBTITLE D
SUBTITLE C P.L. 94-580
CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 208
SECTION 402
SECTION 405
SECTION 20 1
SECTION 307
SECTION 404 P.L. 92-500
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT P.L. 93-523
ADMINISTERING PROGRAM AGENCY PROVISIONS
DHEC Establishes standards for state BUREAU OF and regional solid waste SOLID & HAZARDOUS management and provides WASTE MANAGEMENT
DHEC BUREAU OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
U S . ARMY CORPS OF ENGR.
DHEC
DRINKING WATER PROTECTION
BUREAU OF
technical assistanie for planning and resource recovery.
Establishes standards for generators, transporters, treaters, and disposers of hazardous waste.
Requires the abatement of pollution from industrial and municipal discharges, and identifies and establishes procedures for controlling non-point sources of pollution.
Controls all discharges of pollutants from point sources into U.S. waterways.
Regulates the use and disposal of municipal sewage sludge.
Administers grants to assist in the planningkonstruction of publicly owned treatment plants.
Establishes pretreatment standards for industrial wastes.
Regulates all discharges of dredged material into U.S. waters.
Ensures that water to the public is safe to drink and meets the minimum drinking water standards.
CLEAN AIR ACT P.L. 88-206
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT P.L. 94-469
FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE Acr
CONSO1,IDATED FARM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT P.L. 92-419
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT P.L. 92-583
PUBLIC WORKS
DEVELOPMENT ACT
AND ECONOMIC
P.L. 89-136
ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT P.L. 94-163
DHEC BUREAU OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY & DHEC
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION
AGRICULTURE U.S. DEPT. OF
S.C. COASTAL COUNCIL
ECONOMIC
TRANSP. DIVISION
OFFICE
DEVELOPMENT AND
OF THE GOVERNOR’S
ENERGY RESOURCES DIVISION
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF THE
Mandates state plans describing air pollution control planning and implementation efforts.
Regulates the production, use, and disposal of chemical substances and mixtures.
Regulates the use, storage, and disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers.
Makes project grants and insured loans available for constructiodimprovement of solid waste disposal systems in rural areas.
Provides for the development and administration of a coastal zone management program.
Develops and implements a state economic strategy.
Promotes development of a state energy policy and conservation plan.
15 LEGISLATNE AUTHORITY
1976 CODE OF LAWS I 1-23-10 ET. SEQ.
4-9-30
w Statutes,
Regulations, & 6-7-10 ET. SEQ.
Executive Orders Affecting Solid
Waste Management
South Carolina 5-3 1-2010
6-1 6- 10
6-21-50
16-1 1-700
44- 1- 140
~ 44-55-1010 ET. SEQ.
44-56-10 ET. SEQ.
44-67-10 ET. SEQ.
44-93-10 ET. SEQ.
44-96-10 ET. SEQ.
46- 13- 10
48-1-30
48-1-40
48-3-20
48-19-10 ET. SEQ.
48-39-10 ET. SEQ.
AGENCY RULE MAKING AND ADJUDICATION OF CONTESTED CASES
DESIGNATION OF POWERS UNDER EACH ALTERNATIVE FORM OF GOVERNMENT
ADDITIONAL POWERS OF MUNICIPALITIES AS TO SEWAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
PLANNING BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
SOLID WASTES RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES ACT
MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCT SANITARY EQUIPMENT
DUMPING LITTER ON PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY PROHIBITED
DHEC AUTHORIZED TO PROMULGATE AND ENFORCE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH
COUNTIES MAY REGULATE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT
LITTER CONTROL ACT
INFECTIOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT
SOLID WASTE POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT
PESTICIDES CONTROL ACT
PROMULGATION OF RULES AND REGULATIONS
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
POWERS OF COUNTIES AND INCORPORATED MUNICIPALITIES
MINING ACT
COASTAL TIDELANDS AND WETLANDS
48-43-510
54-1-30
57-27-10 ET. SEQ.
REGULATIONS 61-5
61-9
61-46
61-56
61-59
61-60
61-61
61-66
61-67
61-68
61-70
6 1-79
61-100
61-105
EXECUTIVE ORDERS 71-24
78-16
78-32
OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION
CONTROL OF WASTE OIL DISCHARGES (REGARDING HARBORS) ,
JUNK YARD CONTROLS
PESTICIDE DISPOSAL
NPDES PERMITS
NUISANCES
INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
MILLED OR SHREDDED REFUSE DISPOSAL SITES
STORAGE, COLLECTION, & TRANSPORTATION OF SOLID WASTE
PROCEDURES FOR THE CLOSURE AND ABANDONMENT OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL SITES AND FACILITIES
SUBMISSION OF ENGINEERING REPORTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT STATEMENTS
WATER CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS SYSTEM
SANITARY LANDFILL DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, & OPERATION
HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS
LANDFILL NEEDS CERTIFICATION
INFECTIOUS WASTE REGULATIONS
CREATION OF COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING AREAS
DESIGNATION OF AGENCY PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
DHEC DESIGNATED AS THE AGENCY FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY PLANNING PURPOSES
w.L3 South Carolina
Solid Waste Management Plan
requirements as specified by the
Solid Waste Policy and
Management Act
1) An inventory of the amounts and types of solid waste currently being disposed at solid waste disposal facilities in this State, both in the municipal solid waste stream and in the industrial waste stream
2) An estimate of solid waste that will require disposal at solid waste disposal facilities in this State projected for the 20-year period following this Act’s effective date of May 27,1991
.
3) An estimate of the State’s current capacity to manage solid waste, including an - identification of each solid waste management facility and a projection of its remaining useful life
4) An evaluation of current solid waste management practices, including without limitation waste reduction, recycling, incineration, storage, processing, disposal, and export
5) An analysis of the types of solid waste facilities that will be needed to manage the State’s solid waste during the projected 20-year period
6) A description of procedures by which the State may facilitate the siting, constrnction, and operation of new facilities needed to manage the State’s solid waste over the projected 20-year period
7) An evaluation of existing local government solid waste management programs including recommendations, if necessary, on ways to improve such programs
8) A description of the means by which the State shall achieve its statewide solid waste recycling and reduction goals including recommendations on which categories of solid waste materials should be recycled
9) Procedures and requirements for meeting the State’s goals for waste reduction and recycling, including composting, and objectives for waste-to-energy implementation and sanitary landfilling
10) A description of existing State programs and recommendations for new programs or activities that will be needed to assist local governments in meeting their responsibilities under this article, whether by financial, technical, or other forms of aid
11) Procedures by which local governments and regions may request assistance from the Department of Health and Environmental Control
12) Procedures for encouraging and ensuring cooperative efforts in solid waste management by the State, local governments, and private industry including a description of the means by which the State may encourage local govemments to pursue a regional approach to solid waste management
13) Minimum standards and procedures developed after consulting with local government officials that must be met by a county or region in its solid waste management plan, including the procedures that will he used to provide for input from private industry and from private citizens
14) A comprehensive analysis of the amounts and types of non-regulated hazardous waste currently being disposed in municipal solid waste landfills and recommendations regarding more appropriate means of managing such waste
15) A description of the public education programs to be developed in consultation with local governments, other state agencies, and business and industry organizations to inform the public of solid waste management practices in this State and the need for the benefits of recycling, reduction, and other methods of managing the solid waste generated in this State
16) A description of the program for the certification of operators at solid waste management facilities
17) Recommendation on whether to require that certain solid waste materials be made degradable and, if so, which categories of materials
18) A fiscal impact statement identifying the costs incurred by the Department of Health and Environmental Control in preparing the State Solid Waste Management Plan, the costs that will be incurred in carrying out all of the duties and responsibilities under this Act, including the number of new employees that may be necessary, and an estimate of the revenues that will be raised by the various fees authorized by the Act. These fees are:
$10 per ton disposal fee for solid waste generated out of state $2 per tire $2 per lead-acid battery $2 per white good 8$ per gallon of motor oil or similar lubricant
D E M O G R A P H I C S
South Carolina is a state diverse in geography, climate, land use, transportation routes, industry, and economic base. These qualities have resulted in a diverse population with varied needs and concerns, especially as they relate to solid waste management. This chapter of the Plan is devoted to a description of the current, as well as projected, demographics of the State.
The information resulting from an analysis of this description andprojection has contributed to the determination of the strategies, goals, and proposals ofthis Plan. Information for this chapter has been acquired from the 1991 Statistical Abstract, the 1990 South Carolina Industrial Directory, and solid waste management survey responses received from the counties.
According to the 1990 census results, the population of South Carolina is 3,497,800. While nationally South Carolina ranks 25th in terms of population, regionally it is the least populated state. As anticipated, South Carolina’s population is not evenly distributed among or within the counties. Table 4 contains the counties’ populations for 1990, projected populations for 2010, and the relative percent change. Based on the information in Table 4, it is apparent that most counties in South Carolina are not urban and thus are not included as part of a federally designated Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).
DEMOGRAPHICS 21
As in 1990, 6 0 percent of
South Carolina’s population in 2010
will occupy 31 percent of
South Carolina’s land area.
An MSA is a statistical area containing a large population center surrounded by adjacent communities having strong economic and social ties to that center. MSA’s are defined in terms of whole county units, although they derive their names from one, two, or three central cities located within them. An area qualifies as an MSA in one of two ways: (1) if it contains a city of 50,000 or more inhabitants; or (2) if it has an urbanized area population of at least 50,000 with a city of at least 25,000 and a surrounding urbanized area with a density of 1,000 or more persons per square mile, provided that the total population of the area is at least 100,000. In addition to the county or counties containing the central city, an MSA also includes adjacent counties which meet criteria of social and economic integration. An adjacent county qualifies if at least 75 percent of the resident labor force is non-agricultural and at least 25 percent of the county’s workers are employed in the central county.
-
South Carolina contains five MSA’s and two counties which are named as part of MSA’s: one that is centered in Augusta, Georgia, and the other that is centered in Charlotte, North Carolina. They are designated and described in Table 5. The 12 counties - Aiken, Anderson, Berkeley, Charleston, Dorchester, Florence, Greenville, Lexington, Pickens, Richland, Spartanburg, and York - that are included in these MSA’s comprise 31 percent of the land area of South Carolina. Additionally, these counties contain 60 percent of the population. The rest of the population is located in the remaining 34 counties which are deemed, by implication from the definition above, to be rural.
Using the State’s and the counties’ population growth trends, South Carolina’s population in the year 2010 has been projected to be 4,485,000. This projection indicates a 28 percent increase above the 1990 figures, which is substantially higher than the United States’ projected population increase of 12 percent. However, it should be noted that excluding the 12 counties that are designated as part of MSA’s and excluding four coastal counties (Beaufort, Horry, Georgetown, and Jasper), the remaining 30 counties of the State will experience on the average a 13 percent increase which approximately corresponds with the national average.
The projections for the year 2010 do not indicate much change in the statewide distribution of the population. The 12 counties, as named above, which are designated as part of South Carolina’s 1990 MSA’s and which comprise 31 percent of the State’s land area will contain approximately 60 percent of the population projected for the year 2010. While this distribution remains approximately the same
recognized and addressed. This trend involves an inordinate immigration of permanent residents into the four coastal counties: Beaufort, Horry, Georgetown,
as in 1990, there is one growth trend over this 20-year period that must be
and Jasper. -
-
As specified in Table 4, Beaufort County’s population is projected to increase by 109 percent, Georgetown County’s population is projected to increase by 49 percent, Horry County’s population is projected to increase by 104 percent, and Jasper County’s population is projected to increase by 49 percent. Because industry in these counties is not expected to experience comparable increases, it is anticipated that most of the immigrants will be seeking retirement communities near the Atlantic Ocean.
The population numbers obtained during the 1990 census represent only the resident population of the State. These numbers do not include the State’s temporary population increases resulting from tourism. Many counties in the State, especially the coastal ones, include tourism as one of their major industries. While tourists contribute to the economic base of a county, they also contribute to the population. This contribution, which is seasonal, must be acknowledged and quantified.
A study in Horry County shows that during the months of May to September the county population increases from approximately 144,000 to a maximum of 450,000. While not all counties experience a 200 percent increase in population, many do encounter seasonal increases in population because of tourism.
During a discussion of demographics, one of the factors that must he considered is the economic base of the area. The economic base includes information concerning the sources of employment and personal income, both of which are directly related to the education level of the population. This information can lend insight into solid waste generation and management. Not only does industry provide jobs, but it provides commercial and industrial wastes which must be properly managed. Additionally, an analysis of the economic trends of the State have been used in the determination of the future statewide solid waste management requisites.
South Carolina has undergone a metamorphosis from an agrarian state to an industrial state. Initially this transformation was related to a growing textile industry. However, the economic base of South Carolina has experienced diversification that has strengthened it with regard to national and international competition.
The impact of tourism cannot be
overlooked. Horry County’s
population swells from 144,000 to
450,000 from May to September.
Table 6 provides data on the sources of employment, as determined for 1989 and as projected for 2000, in the State. As is expected, the industrial centers of the State occur in conjunction with the MSA's. The 12 counties designated as MSA's contribute the following percentages to the State's total employment by industry:
In addition to diversification, the economic base of South Carolina is strengthened by an educated work force. In 1980, the median number of years of school completed by South Carolinians 25-years-old and over was 12.1. Of the 12 MSA counties, nine counties' residents 25-years-old and over had completed a median number of years of school equal to and/or greater than this State average. However, only three counties of the remaining 34 had comparably aged residents who had finished a median number of years of school greater than the State average.
In addition to the completion of a median number of years of school equal to and/or greater than the State average, the 12 MSA counties contain more than half of the State's institutes of higher education. Therefore, these counties provide an educated and trained adult labor force. This has and will continue to attract industry to these counties. Consequently, Aiken, Anderson, Berkeley, Charleston, Dorchester, Lexington, Richland, Florence, Greenville, Pickens, Spartanburg, and York counties should continue to experience significant industrial growth.
The regional centers of industry have the highest per capita incomes. In 1988, the per capita incomes for eight of the 12 MSA counties were above the State average of $12,917. Additionally in 1988, four of the 12 MSA counties had per capita incomes above the Southeastern average of $14,460. This distribution of income is
-
expected to persist during the next two decades. However, Beaufort, Horry, Georgetown, and Jasper counties experience such dynamic population increases
- -
and may also experience similar increases in per capita income.
Land Use
The current land use statistics, as seen in Tables 7 through 11, reflect the overall rural nature of the State. Specifically, 88 percent of the State has been classified as forest and/or farmland. This percentage is higher than the national average which is 76 percent. In contrast to the rural areas, South Carolina has approximately 3 percent of its land which is either incorporated or classified as census designated areas with populations of 2,500 or more. As is expected, the majority of these incorporated and census designated areas are in the counties which are contained in the MSA's. It is anticipated that these areas will enlarge in conjunction with the projected increases in population.
Statewide, the 3 percent of land identified as covered with water does not appear to be a significant percentage. However, South Carolina contains numerous man-made lakes and many water bodies associated with the coast. These water masses influence population growth and distribution, industry, transportation, and other demographic properties of the State. The ready availability of large quantities of water is and will continue to be a valuable asset to South Carolina.
Table 11 documents that 10 percent of the State is publicly owned. Because much of the publicly owned land is forest and/or farmland, it is also included in the percentages given for those categories. While state- and federally owned parks, recreation areas, and natural areas are an asset to South Carolina, these lands are not and will probably never be available for development. Thus, counties which have large percentages of publicly owned land may experience less than the statewide projected growth and industrialization but more of an increase in temporary population through tourism.
Almost one-fifth of the publicly owned land in South Carolina is occupied by federal facilities. These facilities such as the Savannah River Site, which consists of 300 square miles, are considered permanent land uses in that they are unavailable for private development.
Considered as a land use, and as a factor affecting land use, are the transportation routes of the State. South Carolina has extensive rail, highway, air, and sea transportation systems. Approximately 2,400 miles of railroad provide the State with both passenger and bulk freight transit. In conjunction with the rail system, South Carolina's highway network facilitates inter- and intra-state transportation.
South Carolina is a rural state with
88 percent of its
land area classified as
forest or farmland.
DEMOGRAPHICS 25
This highway system is comprised of 700 miles of interstate roads; 9,400 miles of primary roads; and 31,000 miles of secondary roads. With regard to air travel, four major airports -Columbia, Charleston, Greenville/Spartanburg, and Florence -and numerous smaller airports provide service to the State. South Carolina’s accessibility nationally and internationally is enhanced by sea ports in Charleston, Georgetown, and Port Royal.
South Carolina’s demographic properties directly influence both the quantity and quality of solid waste generation and management. The most significant population growth is projected for the Charleston MSA and for several coastal counties. Additionally, the coastal area’s population will be supplemented by the seasonal tourist population. Consequently, these areas will have the most significant increases in solid waste generation.
In general, South Carolina is a rural state with an average of 124 people per square - mile. Despite the State’s rural nature, the collection, transportation, and management of the generated solid wastes will be facilitated by the State’s elaborate and extensive transportation systems. With regard to solid waste disposal,
difficulties of siting and operating a disposal facility. none of South Carolina’s demographic advantages will fully alleviate the -
COUNTY 1990 POP. 2010 POP. % CHANGE
BAMBERG 16,900 16.500 -2% I BARNWELL 20,300 26,200 4 9 % - BEAUFORT 87,200 182,100 t109% BERKELEY 129,900 259,700 t100%
CLARENDON 28,500 34,900 t22% - COLLEWN 34,500 44,400 t29% -
TON 61,900 63,500 t3% I
FLORENCE 114,600 127,000 4 % = GEORGETOWN 46,500 69,300 t49% - GREWVILLE 320,900 358,200 t12% GREENWOOD 59,700 69,200 t16% - LANCASTER 54,600 61,800 t13% - LAURENS 58,200 60,900 t 5 % LEE 18,400 18,900 t3% I LEXINGTON 168,400 231,000 t37% - OCONEE 57,700 72,300 4 % - ORANGEBUXF 85,000 96,700 t14% = hCKENS 94,100 109,500 t16% - RICHLAND 286,400 334,500 t l7% - WILLIAMSBURG 36,900 44,400 t20% - YORK 132,000 173,800 t32% - TOTAL 3,497,800 4,485,000 4 8 % -
w 201 0 Population 1990 Population, -
(Projections & Percentage Change)
Source: 1991 Statistical Abstract
w South Carolina
Metropolitan Statistical
Areas (MSA's)
Source: 1991 Statistical Abstract
MSA AIKEN
(PART OF AUGUSTA, GA., MSA)
ANDERSON
CHARLESTON-NORTH CHARLESTON (BERKELEY, CHARLESTON,
DORCHESTER)
COLUMBIA (LEXINGTON, RICHLAND)
FLORENCE
GREENVILLE-SPARTANBURG (GREENVILLE, PICKENS,
SPARTANBURG)
YORK (PART OF CHARLOTTE- GASTONIA-ROCK HILL MSA)
POPULATION AREA (SOUARE MILES) 120,940 1,091 .8 1
145,196
506,875
718.06
2,620.48
453,331 1,468.58
114,344
640,861
13 1,497
804.21
2,107.64
684.81
GOVERNMENT 110,112
MINING 1,815
1% m
1,393,596 TOTAL
WHOLESALE/RETAIL TRADE, FINANCE
307,612 22%
MANUFACTURING 373,858
27%
2000 (Projected)
1,737,020 TOTAL INSURANCE\
SERVICES REAL ESTATE 502,110 83,730
+46 % +38% 29% 5%
GOVERNMENT 131,250
7% +1Y% \
I MANUFACTURING
393,340 23%
112,100 6%
+31% +5%
TRANSPORTATION/ PUBLIC UTILITIES
66,034 4%
WHOLES AL~RETAIL TRADE, FINANCE
422,390 24%
+37 %
TRANSPORTATION/ PUBLIC UTILITIES
90,050 5% +36 %
w South Carolina Employment
Totals (by Indusfiy)
Source: 1991 Statistical Abstract
DEMOGRAPHICS 29
w South Carolina
Land Use by County -
Total land Area (square miles)
Source: 1991 Statistical Abstract
w South Carolina
Land Use by County -
Farmland (percen fage)
Source: 1991 Statistical Abstract
m South Carolina
Land Use by County -
Forest (percentage)
Source: 1991 Statistical Abstract
30.0% -50.0%
0% - 1.0%
HORRY <l.O
WILLIAMSBURG
5.1% -10.0%
&!jelJ South Carolina
Land Use by County -
Wafer (percentage)
Source: 1991 Stutisfical Abstract
DEMOCMWICS 33
m South Carolina
Land Use by County - Public land (percentage)
Source: 1991 Statistical Abstract
E X I S T I N G S O L I D W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T
The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act establishes policies and goals with regard to the State’s future solid waste management. Prior to developing strategies and procedures to implement the policies and achieve the goals, information on existing solid waste management practices must be collected, reviewed, and analyzed.
To obtain the most current and comprehensive solid waste management data, the Department of Health and Environmental Control requested that each of the 46 counties complete a survey on all their existing and proposed solid waste management matters. While the majority of the surveys were returned, only a few of the surveys completely addressed all of the solid waste management issues in the respective counties.
Little to no information was reported by the counties on landfills that are not owned and operated by the counties and on recycling programs that are sponsored by private groups. It is anticipated that the counties will acquire additional knowledge of all public and private solid waste management issues during the preparation of the countyhegion plans that are required by the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act to contain that information.
The solid waste management data submitted by the counties, as well as the information gleaned from the$les of the Department of Health and Environmental Control, are summarized in this chapter: This chapter describes South Carolina’s existing solid waste management prior to the restructuring that will result from the directives of the Act.
’ Solid Waste Policy and Management Act, Section 44-96-80
In 1990, South Carolinians
generated 5 million tons of solid waste . . .
that's 8 pounds of solid waste per person,
per day.
EVALUATION The responsibility of solid waste management has always been shouldered by local government. Counties, as well as some citiedtowns have provided collection, transfer, andor disposal facilities for the residents and businesses in their areas. -
Reporting andor record keeping of these activities has never been required by the Department of Health and Environmental Control. Further, these activities have been financed with general municipal budget disbursements out of local property tax funds. Thus, no reporting andor record keeping has been linked to funding. With the past financing methods, as well as the past management practices, the compilation of solid waste generation data has never been imperative and, thus, has rarely been completed.
Consequently, the statewide generation rates discussed in this chapter are based on limited documentation. However, it is anticipated that these estimates will be refined with the installation of scalesZ at each municipal solid waste disposal facility and the initiation of record keeping: both of which are required by the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act.
GENERATION RATE The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act4 states that on the average, each South Carolinian currently produces approximately 4.5 pounds of solid waste each day. This approximation is for residential solid waste only.
With commercial, industrial, agricultural, governmental, and all other solid wastes included, a total of 8 pounds of solid waste can be attributed to each South Carolinian per day. This amount falls within the range of the national average of 8 to 10 pounds per day, as determined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Assuming the generation rate of 8 pounds per person per day, South Carolina generated approximately 5 million tons of solid waste in 1990.
Many factors affect solid waste generation rates. Several of these factors have more of a national implication while others will affect the generation rates from county to county within the State.
-
Solid Waste Policy and Management Act, Section 44-96-80 1 Solid Waste Policy and Management Act, Section 44-96-400 Solid Waste Policy and Management Act, Section 44-96-20
Geographic location has both national and statewide significance. Nationally, states such as South Carolina with a year-round warm climate have a longer growing season and, thus, have a greater amount of yard trash than states with cooler climates. The warm climate, along with South Carolina's proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, results in a large tourist population visiting the State. An increased tourist population results in an increased generation of solid waste.
The population and economic base of a county affect the solid waste generation rate, as well. Counties that are part of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA's) have a greater amount of commerciaUindustria1 waste than counties that are considered rural. However, the rural counties produce a greater amount of agricultural waste.
Solid waste generation rates experience seasonal fluctuations. Specifically, during the spring and fall most households will produce a greater amount of yard waste than during the summer and winter. During the harvesting season, agrarian counties will produce significant quantities of agricultural wastes. Also, tourism and its increased waste production is, in general, seasonal. In addition to tourism, there are many other industries that have seasonal variations in production and, thus, variations in waste generation.
Several factors that appear to affect the solid waste generation rate actually divert solid waste from landfill disposal to another form of disposal. Household food grinderdgarbage disposals remove a substantial amount of food waste from household waste streams and discharge it into wastewater treatment systems. This factor is particularly significant in urban areas where households are served by wastewater treatment systems.
More than one-third of the households in South Carolina use a septic tank system, and for these households, the disposal of ground food wastes is discouraged by the Department of Health and Environmental Control. Therefore, household solid waste generated in rural areas where septic tanks are prevalent may contain a greater percentage of food waste than wastes generated in urban areas.
Another factor that appears to affect solid waste generation rates is the frequency of collection. In areas using a greenbox collection system, there appears to be a relationship between solid waste generation and the frequency of collection.
Specifically, solid waste generation rates seem to increase with an increase in collection frequency. However, residents in these areas do not generate more solid waste. Instead, many residents who continuously find full to overflowing greenboxes are discouraged from using this system and will resort to illegal and improper disposal methods. Thus, the generation rates in these areas will be skewed.
Household garbage disposals divert food waste from landfills and discharge it into
wastewater treatment systems.
37
WASTE STREAM CHARACTERIZATION With regard to the composition of South Carolina’s solid waste stream, limited studies have been conducted to characterize the State’s solid waste. In January 1992, the Strom Thurmond Institute of Clemson University conducted in-depth solid waste stream assessments in Berkeley, Calhoun, Lee, Orangeburg, and Sumter counties.
These assessments were conducted in conjunction with a study to determine the effect of the disposal of waste debris generated by Hurricane Hugo on the reduction of landfill capacity in these counties. This study will assist the participating counties in evaluating their existing solid waste stream. However, a study of these five counties does not provide the database from which to extrapolate the composition of the total solid waste stream of the State’s 46 counties.
__
Until actual documentation is available, South Carolina has opted to use solid waste characterization percentages given by the United States Environmental Protection Agency?
SOUTH CAROLINA SOLID WASTE STREAM CHARACTERIZATION i PERCENTAGE BY WEIGHT
* Other includes miscellaneous wastes that cannot be categorized elsewhere. t This solid waste stream characterization includes residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural,
governmental, and all other solid wastes that are disposed in municipal solid waste landfills.
Executive Summary of the Characterization ofMunicipal Solid Waste in the United Stater: 1990 Updute, United States Environmental Protection Agency, June 13, 1990
COLLECTION The 5 million tons of solid waste generated annually in South Carolina are basically from five source categories: residential, agricultural, commercial, governmental, and industrial. Collection facilities serving these five categories can be classified as either on-site or off-site.
Nearly all industrial and commercial businesses collect their solid waste on-site in large waste receptacles such as dumpsters and roll-off containers. These receptacles vary in size from three to 40 cubic yard containers, depending on the needs of the business. Typically, these containers are the property of a private waste management company with which the business has a contract.
The waste contract usually involves the lease of the collection container and the hauling of the waste to a landfill. As the business is typically charged per haul, many businesses use a compactor to reduce the volume of their waste and the cost of their solid waste management.
Approximately 46 businesses in the State dispose of some, if not all, of their solid waste at on-site landfills permitted by the Department of Health and Environmental Control. (See Appendix B.) These businesses own their waste collection receptacles and operate the transportation vehicles that haul the waste to the landfill.
Residential solid waste can be collected either on-site or off-site. On-site collection is more prevalent in the urban areas of the State. The proximity of the residences in the urban areas makes curbside collection economically feasible. Consequently, even in areas where local governments do not provide collection service, private industry may.
Only Cherokee, Greenwood, and Richland counties of the 46 counties in the State offer curbside collection county-wide. Many local governments that offer door-to- door collection have passed ordinances restricting the type of waste collection containers used by each residence. For example, Richland County issued each household in the county a “herbie-curbie” and, with the exception of yard trash, will only pick up solid waste stored in these containers.
The majority of the counties in the State are considered rural. Curbside collection of solid waste in rural areas is cost prohibitive. Thus, most counties have established an off-site collection system for their rural residents. This system involves the transportation of household solid waste by private individuals to collection sites conveniently located throughout the county. The county provides trucks that regularly haul the waste from each collection site to the landfill.
Unmanned waste collection sites
result in the disposal of
unauthorized and inappropriate wastes, both
non-hazardous and hazardous.
Currently, the majority of South Carolina’s off-site collection systems include unmanned sites with several waste collection receptacles commonly called greenboxes. With this system, the county has no control over what is placed in the waste collection containers for disposal. This has resulted in the disposal of unauthorized and inappropriate wastes, both non-hazardous and hazardous.
Many counties are establishing manned collection stations. These stations are conveniently located and accept household waste from private individuals. They have controlled access, personnel to monitor waste disposal, compactors to reduce waste volume, and separate containers for recyclable materials and yard waste. -
TRANSFER In the process of hauling waste from the site of generation and/or collection to the site of disposal, it is often more economical to consolidate the loads of solid waste. Several local governments including Anderson, Greenville, Pickens, Bamberg, Colleton, and Fairfield counties; the City of Columbia; and many private transporters have built and use solid waste transfer stations.
These transfer stations are equipped with compactors that reduce the volume of solid waste. Therefore, several truck loads of solid waste can be compacted and, then, hauled by one truck to the landfill.
The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act defines treatment as any technique designed to change the physical, chemical, or biological character or composition of any solid waste so as to render it safe for transport, amenable to storage, recovery, or recycling, safe for disposal, or reduced in volume or concentration.
Based on this definition, shredding, compacting, baling, composting, combustion, and bio-remediation are the solid waste treatments currently being conducted in the State. While pyrolysis (chemical change caused by heat) is included in the definition of treatment, it is currently not being conducted in the State.
SHREDDING Only one landfill in the State, Bees Ferry - Charleston County, is shredding solid waste. The shredding process reduces the volume of the solid waste, provides for efficient compaction in the landfill, and eliminates the requirement that the working face of the landfill receive daily cover.
Volume reduction occurs because shredding eliminates the voids that typically exist in solid waste, such as air space in bottles. Also, shredding allows the liquid portion of the solid waste to be absorbed by the paper portion of the solid waste. This results in a homogeneous waste mixture that is more conducive to compaction by the heavy equipment at the landfill.
Shredding reduces the putrescent nature of the solid waste by decreasing the size of the organic matter and by allowing it to be blended with the remaining waste. The resulting waste does not display the characteristics that typically attract vectors (rodents, mosquitoes, etc. that carry disease) andor birds to landfills. Consequently, the Department of Health and Environmental Control does not require the working face of a landfill that receives shredded waste be covered with the same daily frequency as a landfill that does not receive shredded waste.
COMPACTION The most widely used solid waste volume reduction method is compaction. Compaction can occur at any stage between the point of generation and the point of disposal. Many residences are equipped with trash compactors. These residential compactors offer convenience to households with off-site collection.
Many commercial and industrial businesses reduce the volume of their solid waste with a compactor that is typically leased from the private hauling company with which they have a contract.
Compaction can occur during the hauling phase as well. Trucks collecting non- compacted solid waste are generally equipped with compactors. Further, transfer stations use compactors to reduce the volume of waste received. This reduces the number of trucks needed to haul the waste from the transfer station to the landfill. Finally, landfill operators use compactors to reduce the volume of waste after its placement in the landfill.
BALING Baling is considered treatment because it reduces the total volume of solid waste. Currently, the Abbeville County Landfill is the only landfill that uses a baler. After the solid waste is received at the landfill, it is compressed into bales. These bales are stacked in the landfill. With this system, the use of a compactor at the landfill is not necessary.
COMPOSTING The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act defines a composting facility as any facility used to provide aerobic, thermophilic decomposition of the solid organic constituents of solid waste to produce a stable, humus-like material. Yard wastdland-clearing debris and sludges have been the focus of most composting endeavors in the State. However, paper and food scraps can be composted, as well.
Compaction is the most widely used solid waste
volume reduction method.
The decomposition process in
composting reduces the
original volume of yard wastelland- clearing debris by
as much as 85 percent.
The decomposition process reduces the original volume of yard waste/land-clearing debris by 75 to 85 percent. Not only does composting divert yard waste from landfills to composting facilities, it also provides a final product that is desirable to homeowners and landscaping professionals. The diversion of yard waste/land- clearing debris would reduce the State’s waste stream that is currently being landfilled by almost 18 percent.
On an individual basis, many households are establishing backyard composting areas and using mulching lawn mowers. On a larger scale, two cities in the State have successful composting facilities, and several other cities have begun pilot composting projects. The City of Columbia started a composting facility in 1979. It receives yard waste that is collected curbside from all city residents. The final product is offered to the citizens at a minimal cost.
The City of Aiken started its composting facility several years ago and until this year used the final product in its parks. This year, the City of Aiken had a surplus of the final product and offered it to the citizens at a minimal cost. This surplus was completely sold within several weeks.
The Department of Health and Environmental Control has approved three sludge composting facilities. While all three facilities compost sludge, they use two different composting methods. The Broad Creek PSD Wastewater Treatment Facility in Beaufort County and the Gills Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant in Richland County operate municipal in-vessel sludge composting facilities. The Myrtle Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility in Hony County manages a municipal static aerated pile sludge composting operation.
INCINERATION Incineration is the most effective volume reduction method, as it can result in 70 to 90 percent reduction. There are two solid waste combustors in the State. Charleston County has a 20-year agreement with Foster Wheeler to own and operate the boiler in Charleston County. It receives approximately 225,000 tons of solid waste annually. The facility processes most of the putrescible solid waste generated in the county. This facility, while termed a boiler, is more appropriately referred to as a waste-to-energy operation. The steam produced at the site is sold to the Charleston Naval Shipyard and electricity generated from the steam on site is sold to Carolina Power & Light.
Chambers Medical Technologies of South Carolina, Inc. owns and operates an incinerator in Hampton County. It receives and incinerates approximately 68,000
-
tons of solid waste annually. This includes most of the solid wastes generated in Bamberg, Colleton, and Hampton counties and other special wastes generated by
- -
industries located outside of this area. Attached to the incinerator is a heat recovery system. From this system, Chambers Medical Technologies of South Carolina, Inc. produces steam that is sold to Westinghouse. Therefore, this facility is a waste-to- energy operation as well.
BIO-REMEDIATION Other solid waste treatments that are being conducted in the State are waste-specific and are not prevalent. One of these is bio-remediation. Bio-remediation enlists thz metabolic capabilities of microorganism to biodegrade soils contaminated with petroleum-based products.
Bio-remediation and these other treatments are designed to make the solid waste more amenable for disposal. They are being used at industrial businesses and are generally site-specific.
Disposal
Disposal is defined by the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act as the discharge, deposition, injection, dumping, spilling, or placing of any solid waste into or on any land or water, so that the substance or any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including groundwater.
The disposal methods that are being used in South Carolina can be classified into two categories. The first category includes disposal methods that have been permitted by the Department of Health and Environmental Control including land application and landfilling. The second category includes disposal methods that have not been permitted by the Department of Health and Environmental Control and are unauthorized and illegal, such as open dumping.
LAND APPLICATION Land application is a disposal method that is suitable for various types of solid wastes. However, all of South Carolina’s existing permitted land application sites are disposing of sludge formed during the process of treating drinking water and wastewater, either industrial or domestic.
These sludges often contain large amounts of nutrients that enhance plant growth. Therefore, sludges can be a valuable resource when properly applied to crop and forest land, and when properly used in land reclamation. With good management, the risks of environmental contamination are low, and in many situations land application is the most economical means for an industry or municipality to dispose of the material.
South Carolina has numerous land application sites that have been authorized and permitted by the Department of Health and Environmental Control. One of these permitted sites is operated by the Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority. It land-applies sludge generated from its waste water treatment plant and produces
Incineration is the most effective
volume reduction met hod , , .
70 to 90 percent.
Landfilling is the predominant method of solid waste disposal in
South Carolina.
retail-quality sod. Additionally, many other sites have initiated the process to receive a permit for these activities. Currently, many of the State’s municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities have greater demand for sludge than they can supply.
LAND FILLING Landfilling is the predominant method of solid waste disposal in South Carolina. Currently, South Carolina has 152 permitted landfills. (See Appendix B.) This includes 35 cellulosic/construction waste landfills, 59 domestic waste landfills, two sludge monofills, two ash monofills, 46 industrial waste landfills, and eight inert waste landfills.
-
Approximately half of the 35 cellulosic/construction waste landfills are privately owned and operated. Mostly, these accept waste generated on-site by the business that owns the landfill. The other half of the cellulosic/construction waste landfills are publicly owned and operated. These accept yard waste, land-clearing debris, and construction waste from the local residents and businesses.
Cellulosic/construction waste landfills are owned and operated by Abheville, Aiken, Clarendon, Georgetown, Greenwood, Jasper, Newberry, and Sumter counties. The cities of Gaffney, Great Falls, McCormick, Oraugeburg, Mullins, Clinton, Holly Hill, Woodruff, Lake City, and Rock Hill own and operate cellulosic/construction waste landfills in South Carolina. Therefore, residents and businesses in 21 of the 46 counties have access to publicly owned and operated cellulosic/construction waste landfills.
The Department of Health and Environmental Control has issued two sludge monofill permits. Sludge monofills are landfills that are permitted to accept only sludge. Greer Community Public Works and Horse Creek Pollution Control Authority operate these two landfills that receive their own de-watered sludge.
South Carolina has 59 permitted municipal solid waste landfills. Two of these are owned by the federal govemment and are located at the Savannah River Site and Fort Jackson. They accept only solid waste generated on site. Seven landfills are privately owned and are located in Spartanburg, Allendale, Jasper, Richland, and Dorchester counties. The majority of the out-of-state solid waste received in South Carolina is disposed in these landfills. The remaining 50 municipal solid waste
Colleton, McCormick, Saluda, and Fairfield are the only counties with no municipal solid waste landfills.
landfills are owned and operated by local governments. Currently, Beaufort, -
- An ash monofill is strictly defined as a landfill that is permitted to accept only ash. - South Carolina has issued ash monofill permits to Sandy Pines - Dorchester County and Bees Ferry - Charleston County. While no permanent landfill construction has taken place, 100,000 tons of incinerator ash are stored in a lined monofill at Bees Ferry.
Sandy Pines - Dorchester County has been approved by the Department of Health and Environmental Control to receive ash and special waste. The 60,000 tons of ash it landfilled last year was generated by the waste-to-energy facilities in Charleston and Hampton counties. Last year, Sandy Pines received and disposed of approximately 60,000 tons of special waste - non-residential or commercial solid waste, other than regulated hazardous wastes, that is either difficult or dangerous to handle and requires unusual management.
Most industrial businesses in South Carolina generate some solid wastes that are not inert or cellulosic in nature. Forty-six of these businesses have opted not to dispose of this waste off-site. These businesses have applied for and received from the Department of Health and Environmental Control permits to operate industrial waste landfills at their facilities. More than half of the State's 46 counties have at least one industrial waste landfill.
South Carolina has eight privately owned inert waste landfills. They are located in Aiken, Lexington, Marlboro, and Richland counties. These landfills are permitted by the Department of Health and Environmental Control to accept specific inert wastes generated on-site by the industrial business that owns and operates the landfills.
OPEN DUMPING & LITTERING The second category of disposal methods includes all means that are illegal and unauthorized by the Department of Health and Environmental Control. The 1976 South Carolina Code of Laws6 specifically states that no person may dump, throw, drop, deposit, discard, or otherwise dispose of litter or other solid waste upon any public or private property or waters in the State whether from a vehicle or otherwise.
Using the authority of this law, as well as the Pollution Control Act,' state and county officials are able to pursue offenders administratively, civilly, and criminally through the issuance of administrative orders and proceedings in magistrate court.
Occasionally, unpermitted landfills that are operated by commercial and/or industrial businesses are discovered. In these instances, the responsible party is easily discernable. Once notified, the businesses are obliged to rectify the problem and close the unauthorized landfill.
A more difficult problem arises when individuals who do not have ready access to approved and adequate disposal methods clandestinely dispose of their household wastes in out-of-the-way places such as gullies and wooded areas. These illegal
1976 South Carolina Code of Laws, Section 16-1 1-700 ' 1976 South Carolina Code of Laws, Section 48-1-40
" ....
People cited for littering can be
fined up to $1,000
for each offense.
disposal sites are often subjected to open burning, a hazard to the environment as well as the local community. Because the majority of South Carolina is generally rural, improper disposal of household wastes is a statewide problem.
Several counties including Georgetown, Lexington, Horry, Charleston, Dorchester, Florence have litter control officers to respond to complaints, to investigate open dumps, and to cite people found littering. However, the determination of responsible parties is difficult at best. In most cases, the land owner is held accountable for the removal and proper disposal of the waste.
With the amendment of the 1976 South Carolina Code of Laws,8 persons cited for littering can be fined up to $1,000 for each offense. This Act has put substantial emphasis on the prosecution of offenders and remediation of open dumps.
-
EDUCATION The most important factor affecting solid waste management is the education and attitude of the public. In communities where residents have received education conceming solid waste management issues, solid waste generation rates have decreased, recycling efforts have increased, and proponents of solid waste management legislation have increased. Education and awareness produce more conscientious consumers and constituents.
The majority of South Carolina’s public education regarding solid waste management is conducted by private organizations. In anticipation of the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act, many local governments have initiated recycling programs that involve some public education.
For example, Greenwood County has a very active education program that includes a mascot who presents recycling programs at the county schools and at local special events.
In conjunction with its recycling program, the City of Rock Hill established a partnership with the local schools to provide information on solid waste -
management issues, in particular recycling. In addition to classroom education, this partnership has included the funding and directing of field trips to the recycling center and the landfill.
1976 South Carolina Code of Laws, Section 16-11-700
Charleston County retains an Education Specialist on staff to present programs to school and civic groups, to conduct tours of the recycling center and to coordinate media advertising and promotions.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE The Department of Health and Environmental Control has always provided routine technical assistance to the owners/operators of municipal solid waste landfills, both public and private, and has provided technical assistance to the owners/operators of industrial solid waste landfills upon request. This technical assistance has included, but has not been limited to, on-the-job operator training, monthly inspections by district personnel, and engineering expertise and experience.
With regard to the dynamic nature of solid waste management issues, the Department of Health and Environmental Control has provided a trained solid waste professional in each of the 12 districts to provide education and technical assistance as needed. These 12 employees in addition to the central office personnel are available to respond to any solid waste management issues, questions, and concerns.
.. ,
South Carolina’s recycling, reuse, and reduction efforts are still in their infancy. In anticipation of the enactment of the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act, many local govemments started recycling programs. An overview of the current recycling programs in individual counties is included in Appendix E.
The State’s reuse and reduction efforts have been limited to commercial/industrial businesses. The Hazardous Waste Management Act has affected industrial solid waste generation and management in South Carolina. This Act gives the Department of Health and Environmental Control the authority and the funds to establish a Center for Waste Minimization. This Center is a free, non-regulatory service providing new and existing businesses in South Carolina with technical assistance on waste reduction methods and strategies.
Since its inception in February 1990, the Center for Waste Minimization has provided assistance to over 500 clients. While a substantial number of requests were related to hazardous waste, the Center has been very successful in assisting commercial businesses and industries in solid waste minimization as well.
The Center for Waste
Minimization is a free service
providing businesses in South Carolina with technical assistance on
waste reduction methods and strategies.
Specific Wastes Banned s, & Hazardous Wastes
SPECIAL WASTES The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act defines special waste as non-residential or commercial solid wastes, other than regulated hazardous wastes, that are either difficult or dangerous to handle and require unusual management at municipal solid waste landfills. -
Currently, the Department of Health and Environmental Control receives the special waste disposal applications for every landfill in the State. The generator includes the following in its application:
an analysis of the solid waste the frequency of disposal the annual quantity of waste to be disposed the specific landfill it would like to use.
The Department reviews the information and notifies the generator and the landfill ownedoperator of the acceptability of the solid waste at the specified landfill. After receipt of this notification, the landfill owner/operator determines if it will accept the solid waste for disposal.
“SPECIFIC WASTES” BANNED FROM LANDFILLS Prior to the enactment of the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act, the only wastes banned from disposal in the State’s solid waste landfills were radioactive wastes, hazardous wastes: and liquids. The Act establishes landfill disposal ban deadlines for used oil, waste tires, yard waste, white goods, and lead-acid batteries. Therefore, management of these wastes prior to these ban deadlines will be discussed in this section.
The management of used oil and used lead-acid batteries is governed by the Hazardous Waste Management Regulations which are enforced by the Department of Health and Environmental Control. Used lead-acid batteries and, to a limited extent, used oil have a monetary value. Most batteries and oil are being reclaimed and/or reused. For example, waste oil is often used as a fuel source.
Whole waste tires have always presented a disposal problem. Currently, many counties have waste tire piles, some containing thousands of tires. With an average generation rate of one waste tire per person per year, tires are buried in landfills and
-
- stockpiled in anticipation of a future use. -
’ Defined in the Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (61-79)
With the exception of two cities, Aiken and Columbia, and several pilot projects, the State’s yard trash/land-clearing debris is being disposed in municipal solid waste landfills and cellulosickonstruction waste landfills. The recent growing interest in backyard composting has reduced the quantity of this waste slightly.
The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act defines white goods as refrigerators, ranges, water heaters, freezers, dishwashers, trash compactors, washers, dryers, air conditioners, and commercial large appliances. In general, these wastes have been separated from the solid waste loads as they arrived at the landfill and sold and/or given away to scrap metal dealers.
HAZARDOUS WASTES Each household in South Carolina routinely generates small quantities of hazardous wastes such as paint thinner. These hazardous wastes are disposed in municipal solid waste landfills with the other solid wastes generated in the household. No records of quantity and composition of these hazardous wastes have ever been kept.
The only efforts to reduce the volumes of household hazardous wastes being disposed in unlined landfills originated from private concerns. The League of Women Voters in coordination with various private hazardous waste management companies have conducted periodic “amnesty days.” With the assistance of the Department of Health and Environmental Control, household hazardous wastes were accepted for recycling, reclamation, incineration, and/or disposal in a lined, secure landfill.
Small quantities of industrially or commercially generated hazardous waste are unintentionally disposed in municipal solid waste landfills. The landfill owner/operator in conjunction with the Department of Health and Environmental Control use the special waste approval system to prevent this occurrence. While this system requires an annual waste assessment of each special waste prior to disposal authorization, the hazardous characteristics of small quantities of hazardous waste in a large volume of solid waste will often be undetectable. Therefore, keeping records of quantities and composition of these hazardous wastes is impossible.
I ’
Each household in South Carolina
routinely generates small quantities of hazardous wastes
such as paint thinner.
r Import & Export of Solid Waste
Records of import and export quantities and waste composition have never been kept in South Carolina. Recyclable materials are being imported into South Carolina for recycling, and solid waste is being imported into the State for disposal. Currently, there seems to be a balance of import to export for the purposes of recycling. However, more solid waste appears to be imported into rather than exported out of the State for disposal. It also appears that the majority of this out- of-state generated solid waste disposal occurs at the privately owned landfills in the State.
Full Cost Disclosue . . . % _.,. f , ,.
As stated in the introduction of this chapter, the method with which counties/municipalities have financed their solid waste management programs has not resulted in accurate determinations of landfill costs. However, the City of Greenville has estimated its costs of operation and maintenance of its landfill at $20 per ton. Realizing the variability in operations and maintenance of landfills across the State, it would not be prudent to use this amount to determine the costs in other counties or for the entire State.
, . Conclusion
Specific data on the existing solid waste management programs in South Carolina are not known. The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act requires the installation of scales at each municipal solid waste disposal facility and the keeping of records concerning all facets of solid waste management. As this information is generated, this chapter will be revised annually to reflect a more accurate database.
-
- -~
F U T U R E S O L I D W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T
The enactment of the Solid Waste Policy and Management.-~’t mandates that the State’s existing solid waste management be assessed and that the State’s future solid waste management needs be determined and addressed.
As stated in the EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Chaptel; complete information on the State’s existing solid waste generation rate and characterization is not available. Additionally, few records have been kept concerning collection, transfel: treatment, disposal, or any other facet of solid waste management. Based on the lack of complete information, the State’s existing solid waste management system can only be assessed in concept and the State’s future solid waste mana.qement needs can only be proposed in general terms.
Only since the passage of the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act and the regulations that will be promulgated pursuant to it will recordkeeping and reporting be required. As this required solid waste management information becomes available, it will be incorporated into the annual revisions of the South Carolina Solid Waste Management Plan. It is anticipated that several years of recordkeeping and reporting will be necessary to form a complete database.
Each section in this chapter includes an initial evaluation of the solid waste management practices prior to the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act, the directives given by the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act, and the requirements and the proposals for managing the State’s future solid waste.
FUTURE
MANAGEMENT SOLIDWASTE 51
The EPA predicts that per capita
solid waste generation rates
will increase 10 percent by
the year 2000 . . . and another
10 percent by the year 2010.
~ Generation & Characterization
EVALUATION South Carolina has no record keeping system from which to infer accurate solid waste generation rates and waste stream characterization percentages. The failure to initiate and/or require a solid waste record keeping system has resulted in South Carolina’s use of national averages, as determined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, for assessment of waste generation per capita and for waste stream characterization percentages. The use of these national averages introduces a factor of error to the amounts projected in this section. At this time, this error cannot be avoided. However, this error will be reduced and the amounts will be refined with each annual revision of the Plan.
DIRECTIVES The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act includes two directives regarding solid waste generation and Characterization. The first directive requires each ownedoperator of a municipal solid waste landfill and/or a municipal solid waste incinerator to install scales on or before November 27, 1992, and to weigh and record all solid waste when it is received. The Act also requires that these records must be maintained by the municipal solid waste landfills and incinerators and must be available to the Department of Health and Environmental Control upon request.
The compilation of these records will provide the State with a more accurate foundation from which to determine current and to project future generation rates and municipal solid waste stream characterization percentages.
The second directive, which is included in the list of purposes of the Act found in the LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY Chapter of this Plan, is to promote reduction of solid waste generation. The Act establishes, within the Department of Health and Environmental Control, the Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling and includes the following items in the list of the Office’s duties and responsibilities:
promote and assist in the development of solid waste reduction provide for the education of the general public and training of
solid waste management professionals to encourage solid waste reduction
solid waste reduction. develop descriptive literature to educate local governments on
PROJECTIONS The United States Environmental Protection Agency predicts that per capita solid waste generation rates will increase 10 percent by the year 2000, and from 2000 until the year 2010 rates will increase by another 10 percent.’ These predicted percentage increases applied to the 1990 residential and total solid waste generation rates yield the following statistics on projected solid waste generation for South Carolina.
Multiplying the amount projected for Total Solid Waste Generated (per capita, per day) with the respective population projections from the 1991 South Carolina Statistical Abstract, South Carolina will generate approximately 6.25 million tons of solid waste in the year 2000 and approximately 8 million tons of solid waste in the year 2010. These figures reflect the solid waste that is generated subsequent to reduction efforts but prior to treatment, reuse, and recycling.
The following projected compositions of the solid waste streams generated in the year 2000 and in the year 2010 are also from the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s municipal solid waste report. South Carolina’s solid waste stream characterization percentages should he analogous to these projections.
SOLID WASTE STREAM COMPOSITION - YEAR 2000 PERCENTAGE BY WEIGHT
FOODIYARD WASTE - 24% .
GLASSMETALS - 12%
*Other includes miscellaneous wastes that cannot be categorized elsewhere.
1 Executive Summary, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in !he United Stares: 1990 Update,United States Environmental Protection Agency, June 11, 1990.
South Carolina will generate
approximately 6.25 million tons of solid waste in
the year 2000 and approximately 8 million tons
in the year 2010.
FUTURE SOLID WAS^ MANAGEMENT 53
The reduction of solid waste is the
first step in an integrated
approach to future solid waste
management,
SOLID WASTE STREAM COMPOSITION - YEAR 2010 PERCENTAGE BY WEIGHT
F O O D ~ A R D WASTE - 16% -
GLASSMETALS - 12%
OTHER* - 12%
PLASTIC - 12%
*Other includes miscellaneous wastes that cannot be categorized elsewhere.
REQUIREMENTS & PROPOSALS The owner/operator of each landfill or incinerator must keep weight and volume records of the solid waste quantities received. These records must be made available, upon request, to the respective countyhegion and to the Department of Health and Environmental Control. The county/region will use this information to assess the current solid waste generation rate and to project future rates.
Regarding waste stream characterization, each municipal solid waste landfill and municipal solid waste incinerator should conduct a waste characterization study and should make the results of this study available to its respective county/region. To produce reliable and comprehensive data, the study should entail the periodic, yet random, sampling, sorting, and weighing of the solid waste that is to be disposed or incinerated. The frequency with which this will be done should be determined on a site-specific basis. The waste should be sorted into the following six general categories: paper, food, plastic, metal, glass, and other. Further refining the categories to determine specific types of paper, for instance, would be beneficial. Additionally, the study should identify the sources of the wastes. Source categories are residential, commercial, governmental, industrial, and agricultural.
The information produced from this study will assist the State and the respective countyhegion in calculating statewide and countyhegion data, in ascertaining quantities of wastes that have been removed from the waste stream for recycling,
attention from the recycling and reduction programs. and in targeting sources of waste stream components that require additional -
With reduction of solid waste generation as the first step in an integrated approach to future solid waste management, the Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling is charged with spearheading the State’s waste reduction efforts. This Office is staffed and available to provide each county/region with waste reduction information and to offer training and give presentations as needed.
The county/region must develop a solid waste reduction program specific to its area. This program must target existing and future commercial/industrial businesses, as well as private individuals.
EVALUATION South Carolina’s existing solid waste collection methods include curbside residential waste receptacles, on-site industrialkommercial waste receptacles, greenboxes, and convenience stations. These collection methods provide the State with a basic collection system. Because a majority of the collection sites are unmanned, the current system allows for the disposal of unauthorized wastes, both non-hazardous and hazardous. The collection and eventual disposal of unauthorized wastes presents safety, public health, and environmental problems for the State.
Additionally, this system has no mechanism to monitor and/or manage the leachate that is generated from the naturally occurring liquids in the solid waste and from precipitation that enters and percolates through the solid waste. This leachate, that may contain contaminants from the solid waste, may escape the collection receptacle and may leak onto the ground. This poses potential safety, public health, and environmental problems.
Finally, the existing collection system has no provisions to prevent the occurrence of animals and/or vectors that are attracted to and propagated by the solid waste in the collection receptacles. Uncontrolled animals and/or vectors at a collection site pose a safety, public health, and environmental problem as well.
Many solid waste haulers, both public and private, do not maintain the unmanned collection receptacles, such as greenboxes, with adequate frequency. This has added to the problem of illegal and unauthorized disposal throughout the State.
Adequate collection
frequency reduces illegal and
unauthorized disposal.
Control over the quantity and
quality of the solid waste generated is
essential to the effectiveness of
solid waste management.
Transfer facilities are an increasing component of the State’s integrated solid waste management. A limited amount of information is available on these facilities as they have not been previously regulated by the Department of Health and Environmental Control. A cursory evaluation of transfer facilities indicates that there is the potential for leachate, as well as vector and animal control problems.
DIRECTIVES The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act does not mandate specific directives with regard to solid waste collection sites. However, the Department of Health and
obsolete and must be updated to reflect the goals and policies of the Act. The updated regulations will include operation and maintenance of collection receptacles, and collection and transportation vehicle standards.
Environmental Control has determined that the existing collection regulations’ are __
With regard to transfer facilities, the Act does direct the Department of Health and Environmental Control to develop regulations establishing minimum standards for solid waste storage at or in a transfer station. Specifically, the Act states that the regulations shall require any spillage or leakage of solid waste be contained on the storage site and that no unpermitted discharges to the environment occur. The Act also requires the development of regulations for permitting, for operation, and for maintenance of a transfer facility.
It is anticipated that both sets of regulations will be promulgated during the 1993 Legislative Session.
REQUIREMENTS & PROPOSALS Control over the quantity and quality of the solid waste generated in South Carolina is essential to the effectiveness of the State’s future solid waste management program. With regard to collection methods, unmanned collection stations, while convenient, offer the least control of any collection method. It is recommended that unmanned collection stations be phased out and that manned convenience stations be incorporated in each county/region. However, if unmanned collection sites remain in use, they must be maintained with an adequate frequency and have all-weather accessibility.
Manned convenience stations can be located conveniently for the collection of household waste from private individuals. These stations provide controlled access
separate containers for recyclable materials and yard waste can also be included at each site. This system is the best collection method for counties/regions to monitor
and personnel to monitor waste disposal. Compactors to reduce waste volume and
solid wastes generated in rural areas or areas not served by curbside collection vehicles. -
-
-
1976 South Carolina Code of Laws, Section 44-1-140(11) 2
Each countyhegion that notifies the Department of Health and Environmental Control of its intention to use a regional municipal solid waste incinerator and/or landfill must consider the practicality of and conduct an economic feasibility study of incorporating solid waste transfer stations into its solid waste management program.
Counties that collect large volumes of solid waste and that transfer this waste over long distances should also consider the practicality and economic feasibility of solid waste transfer stations.
Each countyhegion must evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the collection and transfer services offered in its area. These services must:
minimize the cost per household satisfy the community’s needs provide service to all social and demographic groups equally ensure consistency ensure worker safety and protection of public health and the environment.
In addition to these requirements, each countyhegion must initiate a public education and awareness program that includes information on the solid waste collection options. This information must include, but is not limited, to the location of every collection site in its area, the frequency of collection at each site, and the appropriate solid wastes to be placed in the collection receptacles.
Treatment
EVALUATION Compacting is the best method to reduce the volume of solid waste at the point of generation and during transport. Compacting on-site by the generator, at transfer stations, and at off-site collection centers offers the best way to reduce the costs of solid waste transportation.
However, on-site compactors used by most landfills do not provide the maximum available reduction capabilities. Using a system that offers less than the maximum volume reduction may not he the most prudent method of operating a municipal solid waste landfill.
Compacting is the best method to
reduce the volume of solid waste at
the point of generation &
during transport.
FU” SOLID WASTE 57 MANAGEMENT
The baling system being used in Abbeville County appears to reduce the volume of solid waste successfully and economically. This reduction is greater than the reduction that is achieved by on-site landfill compactors. However, not all solid wastes, in particular industrial wastes, are amenable to the baling process.
Shredding of solid waste has several benefits. However these benefits do not appear to outweigh the costs of operating and maintaining the shredder. Therefore, the shredding efforts in South Carolina may be discontinued for a more cost-effective volume reduction treatment.
South Carolina’s composting endeavors have been limited. These endeavors have been successful in diverting yard trash from the City of Columbia’s and City of Aken’s waste streams and in producing a desirable end product.
-
The solid waste combustion facilities in South Carolina convert waste to energy and offer the greatest solid waste volume reduction. Waste-to-energy facilities generate revenue-producing by-products: steam and/or electricity. However, high costs and low public opinion have restricted their use.
The only other treatment being practiced in South Carolina is bio-remediation. Bio-remediation has been used in site-specific cases that have had limited success.
DIRECTIVES The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act requires the promulgation of regulations concerning processing and composting, but does not mandate any specific directives regarding the treatment of solid waste. The Act forbids the disposal of yard waste and land-clearing debris in municipal solid waste landfills after May 27, 1993, and allows the composting of this material to account for 40 percent, by weight, of the 25 percent recycling goal. (See the GOALS POLICIES, STRATEGIES, AND BARRIERS Chapter for additional information.) Therefore, the Act does encourage composting as an alternative to landfilling yard trash.
The other treatment the Act specifically addresses is incineration. The Act requires regulations that establish incinerator standards to be promulgated and minimum requirements for the disposal of incinerator ash. It also allows 50 percent of the State’s 30 percent reduction goal to be met through incineration which is conducted at a facility permitted prior to May 27, 1991. (See the GOALS POLICIES, STRATEGIES, AND BARRIERS Chapter for additional information.)
Department of Health and Environmental Control to develop regulations that
-
In addition to processing and incineration regulations, the Act requires the
establish minimum standards for any storage of solid waste prior to processing or incineration. Specifically, the Act states that the regulations shall require that any spillage or leakage of solid waste be contained on the storage site and that no unpermitted discharges to the environment occur.
-
It is anticipated that the processing, composting, incineration, incinerator ash management, and storage regulations will be promulgated during the 1993 Legislative Session.
REQUIREMENTS & PROPOSALS With the increased cost of converting existing landfills and the high costs of siting and constructing new landfills to comply with the new federally mandated standards, it is essential to adopt the most effective volume reduction techniques. Each countyhegion must consider all options and must select the best available volume reduction methods for its integrated solid waste management program.
Nearly 75 percent of the municipal solid waste stream is combustible. Therefore, combustion provides the greatest degree of volume reduction, 70 to 90 percent. A countyhegion with a large concentrated population should consider a waste-to- energy, or combustion system as part of the volume reduction efforts of its integrated solid waste program. However, combustion does not offer the most cost- effective solution for each county/region.
Each countyhegion must consider a composting facility as part of its total, integrated solid waste management program. Composting can divert organic wastes from landfills or can offer significant volume reduction of organic wastes prior to landfilling.
Composting of yard waste and land-clearing debris may require the purchase of equipment that is too costly for every county to afford. Therefore, counties should consider a regional approach (such as a shared mobile tub grinder) to accommodate composting. Additionally, as the supply of the final composted product may exceed the horticultural demand, countieshegions should consider and develop alternative uses for the material such as a constituent for daily landfill cover. Lastly, countiedregions should launch backyard composting programs by producing and distributing educational materials and achievement incentives.
Bio-remediation is a treatment technique that is in the developmental stage. It should be considered as a viable option in the treatment of certain solid wastes such as soil contaminated with petroleum products. Successful bio-remediation in conjunction with other treatments may allow for the treated, decontaminated soils to remain where they are. This would save valuable landfill space.
Composting can divert organic wastes from landfills I
F u W SOLID WASTE 59 MANAGEMENT
In the past, lack of control has resulted in
hazardous materials being
disposed in many of the State’s open
dumps and landfills.
EVALUATION South Carolina’s existing solid waste disposal system has evolved from the use of local dumps with no operational standards and no limitations on waste acceptance
enforcement of waste acceptance limitations. The previous lack of control has resulted in hazardous materials being disposed in many of the State’s open dumps and current landfills. Having a potential for environmental contamination, these sites have been included in the State’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Site Inventory. (See Appendix C.)
to the use of landfills with minimum operational standards and minimum -
Because of the rural nature of the State, unauthorized and illegal dumping/disposing of solid waste is prevalent. South Carolina’s existing litter prevention program is limited in its manpower and authority and is not adequate to address the existing problem. The success of this program also depends on the importance local magistrates place on littering offenses.
With regard to large open dumps, the Department of Health and Environmental Control is understaffed and cannot allocate the time necessary to address every dump. However, enforcement proceedings are usually initiated against recalcitrant repeat offenders.
Illegal and unauthorized disposal sites are often subjected to open burning which is not only a hazard to the environment but to the local communities as well.
The land application of sludges has been a widely used disposal technique. However, the land application of solid wastes, other than sludges, has not received the research and development attention that is warranted.
Degradability of solid waste does not affect how it will react once the material has been landfilled. The most degradeable components of the solid waste stream are organic materials and these should be composted or land-applied.
DIRECTIVES The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act states that one of its goals is to reduce
-
by 30 percent, calculated by weight, on a statewide per capita basis, the amount of solid waste being disposed at municipal solid waste landfills. In addition to its
- -
reduction goal, the Act directs the Department of Health and Environmental
Control to promulgate regulations that establish standards for the siting, construction, operation, closure, and post-closure of the following types of landfills:
cellulosickonstruction waste landfills industrial waste landfills sludge monofills ash monofills inert waste landfills municipal solid waste landfills.
It is anticipated that these regulations will be promulgated during the 1993 Legislative Session.
The municipal solid waste landfill regulations must establish standards that are at least as stringent as those included in Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). To meet Subtitle D standards, a municipal solid waste landfill must be lined with two feet of clay that has a permeability of at least 1 x and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) liner that is 30 millimeters thick or a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) liner that is 60 millimeters thick.
In addition to more comprehensive solid waste management, the South Carolina Legislature also has recognized the need to prevent the unauthorized and illegal disposal of solid waste. With the passage of the Act, the lawz was amended to allow for increased penalties for litter violations.
The Act also directs the Department of Health and Environmental Control to promulgate regulations that establish minimum standards for land application facilities. Specifically, the Act requires that the regulations establish operational and siting requirements.
It is anticipated that these regulations will be promulgated during the 1993 Legislative Session.
1976 South Carolina Code of Laws. Section 16-11-700 2
Planning for needed municipal
solid waste landfills should
begin immediately.
KEQUIREMENTS & YROPOSALS The owner/operator of each municipal solid waste landfill in the State should provide the following disposal information to the countyhegion for incorporation into the county/region solid waste management plan:
1) the record of the weight and characterization of all solid waste
2) the proposed closure date (not to exceed October 9, 1995 received at the landfill during the previous fiscal year
for any existing landfill unit which does not meet the Subtitle D standards as stated above)
__ 3) an estimate of the remaining life of its existing landfill.
Other than municipal solid waste landfills, the owner/operator of each solid waste landfill - ash monofill, sludge monofill, industrial waste landfill, cellulosickonstruction waste, and inert waste landfill - in the State should provide the following disposal information to the county/region for incorporation into the countyhegion solid waste management plan:
1) the record of the weight and characterization of all solid waste
2) an estimate of the remaining life of its existing landfill. received at the landfill during the previous fiscal year
The owner/operator of each land application facility in the State should provide the following disposal information to the countyhegion for incorporation into the countyhegion solid waste management plan:
1) the record of the weight and characterization of all solid waste land applied at the facility during the previous fiscal year
application facility. 2) an estimate of the remaining life of its existing land
Each countyhegion must acquire this disposal information from the solid waste disposal facilities in its area. This information must be used in the assessment of existing solid waste management and in the planning for future solid waste management. Specifically, this information must be used to assist in the determination of progress in attaining the goal of 30 percent reduction, by weight, of solid waste received at municipal solid waste landfills and at solid waste incinerators.
Based on the projected solid waste generation rates for the area, each countyhegion must determine the remaining life of the disposal facility(s) used by its residents. If the remaining life is less than the mandated 20-year planning period, each
-
countyhegion must consider all solid waste disposal options and select a combination of options that will provide the area residents with an integrated solid
- -
waste disposal system through the year 2010.
A countyhegion that decides to build a new landfill should begin planning for it immediately. The process of siting, permitting, and constructing a new landfill, whether it be public or private, county or regional, should begin at least five years before the existing landfill reaches capacity. If the landfill site has already been acquired, the process of permitting and construction should begin at least two years before the existing landfill reaches capacity.
Each countyhegion must develop a plan to abate illegal solid waste disposal that is occurring in its area and that may result because of stricter solid waste management and increased disposal costs. This plan must incorporate the use of the county litter officer program, if in existence, and should include a local magistrate education program that emphasizes the significance of penalizing those people guilty of littering. Additionally, the countyhegion plan should address the illegal and unauthorized open burning of solid waste.
In response to the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act, the Department of Health and Environmental Control has established a solid waste enforcement section. This section enforces provisions of the Act and regulations developed pursuant to the Act and will enforce the Pollution Control Act3 as it relates to solid waste. This enforcement includes actions against those people who illegally dispose and dump solid waste.
Also, each county/region must develop a public education and awareness program that includes, but is not limited to, the identification of all solid waste disposal facilities in the area, the identification of which solid wastes are appropriate for disposal at which site, and the consequences of illegal and unauthorized solid waste disposal, littering. The Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling is available to assist counties in this effort.
EVALUATION Only a limited number of solid waste management education and awareness programs have been sponsored by the State and the countieshegions. These programs have not provided adequate instruction on South Carolina’s existing solid waste management practices. In addition to these efforts, a few private concerns have initiated public education programs. However, these have been limited in content and distribution.
1976 South Carolina Code of Laws, Section 48-1-10 et. seq,
ElrruriE
MANAGEMENT SOLIDWASTE 63
The Off ice of Solid Waste Reduction
and Recycling and the
countieslreg ions should work to provide public education and
awareness programs.
The Department of Health and Environmental Control has always attempted to provide public and private solid waste management facilities with technical assistance. Because the Department of Health and Environmental Control’s solid waste management personnel also regulate hazardous waste management, the technical assistance has been limited to the times when personnel were not working with hazardous waste management issues.
DIRECTIVES The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act states that part of its purpose is to establish and maintain a cooperative state program for providing technical assistance to local governments for solid waste management, to promote the education of the general public to reduce the generation of solid waste, to ensure proper disposal of solid waste, and to encourage recycling.
~~~
The Act established the Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling and includes the following in the list of the Office’s duties and responsibilities:
1) provide for the education of the general public and the training of solid waste management professionals to encourage recycling and solid waste reduction
2) develop descriptive literature to educate local governments on solid waste reduction and recycling issues
3) conduct at least one workshop each year in each region served by a Council of Government.
This Office is also mandated by the Act to work with the Department of Education to develop approved curriculum materials and resource guides for recycling awareness programs. The materials and guides will be offered to all public and private schools within the State. The Office will conduct a pilot test of these materials and guides and will be available to train instructors on the finalized program that should be ready for the 1993.1994 school year.
REQUIREMENTS & PROPOSALS Public education is sponsored by the Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling and the counties/regions. These groups should work both separately and together to provide South Carolina with year-round public education and awareness programs that address all facets of solid waste management, including but not limited to the following:
solid waste reduction -
location and proper use of solid waste collection facilities
waste landfill - solid wastes that are appropriately disposed in a solid -
benefits of backyard composting location of local solid waste landfills consequences of illegal solid waste disposal such
as littering
specifics of the local recycling efforts appropriate methods to manage “specific
wastes” such as used oil, waste tires, lead-acid batteries, yard trashlland-clearing debris, and white goods that are banned from disposal in landfill
hazardous wastes * identification and proper disposal of household
full cost of solid waste management benefits of recycling methods of recycling and reuse.
Each countyhegion must recognize its audience and tailor its public education programs to their needs.
Information distribution techniques may include brochures distributed in monthly utility statements, posters for display in retail shops such as grocery stores, curricula available to public and private schools, educational seminars offered through the local extension services, and exhibits displayed at special community events.
The Office of Recycling and Reduction has personnel available to give presentations, to provide training as requested, and to assist countiedregions in conducting public education programs. Additionally, the Office will update the countieshegions on new ideas and innovative solid waste management techniques through a periodic newsletter.
The Department of Health and Environmental Control continues to provide technical assistance to public and private solid waste management facilities. With the addition of central office and district personnel, whose responsibilities are strictly solid waste management, the Department of Health and Environmental Control hopes to provide adequate response to the additional requests for technical assistance that will result from new regulations.
Technical assistance will be provided by the Department of Health and Environmental Control during the required training of solid waste management facility personnel. The Department of Health and Environmental Control is required by the Act to establish qualifications for the development of certification programs for landfill operators, recycling coordinators, and other solid waste management facility operators. Additionally, the Act requires all landfill operators to complete a Department of Health and Environmental Control-approved operator certification course by May 27, 1993.
The Solid Waste Policy and
Management Act states that by
1997,25 percent of the State’s solid
waste stream should be recycled.
EVALUATION South Carolina’s recycling efforts have not met the public’s desire to recycle nor their demand for recycling. The residential recycling sites that are available have not provided the educational materials to instruct people on what recyclable materials are accepted at the sites. Commercial and industrial recycling, that are influenced by economic concerns, have received little to no emphasis. The most successful statewide efforts have involved commercialhndustrial solid waste reduction and have been made by the Center of Waste Minimization.
DIRECTIVES The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act includes the following in its purpose:
1) to promote the reduction, recycling, reuse, and treatment of solid waste and the recycling of materials that would otherwise be disposed of as solid waste
2) to encourage the development of waste reduction and recycling programs through planning assistance, technical assistance, grants, and other incentives
3) to encourage the development of the State’s recycling industries by promoting the successful development of markets for recycled items and by promoting the acceleration and advancement of the technology used in manufacturing processes that use recycled items
by requiring the General Assembly, the Governor’s Office, the Judiciary, and all State agencies to separate solid waste for recycling and by granting a preference in state procurement policies to products with recycled content
resource recovery, or recycling programs, or all of the above, or enhance existing programs
6) to promote the establishment of resource recovery systems that preserve and enhance the quality of air, water, and land resources.
4) to establish a leadership role for the State in recycling efforts
5) to require counties to develop and implement source separation,
The Act also establishes two goals with regard to recycling and reduction. First, 25 percent, calculated by weight, of the State’s solid waste stream should be recycled. Second, there should be a 30 percent reduction, calculated by weight, of waste received at municipal solid waste landfills and at solid waste incinerators.
Both of these goals have been set for 1997. (See the GOALS, POLICIES, STRATEGIES, & BARRIERS Chapter in this Plan for additional information.)
The Act creates the Recycling Market Development Council that resides within the State Development Board for the purpose of developing markets for recovered materials and products with recycled content.
As required by the Act, the Recycling Market Development Council has prepared a report on the status of and recommendations for encouraging recycling in South Carolina. Copies of this report, dated August 27, 1992, can be obtained from the State Development Board.
The Act also creates the Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling to promote and assist in the development of source separation, recovery, and recycling programs; to maintain a directory of recycling and resource recovery systems in the State; and to provide assistance in matching recovered materials with markets. The Office started providing services in January 1992, and was fully staffed in March 1992.
The Act requires, by November 27, 1993, the General Assembly, the Governor's office, the Judiciary, each state agency, and each state-supported institution of higher education to establish source separatiodrecycling and solid waste reduction programs. Additionally, the Act requires the Division of General Services to analyze and revise the State Procurement Regulations so that the purchase of materials with recycled content and materials which are recyclable is encouraged.
The Act also establishes the following deadlines for packaging materials.
PACKAGING MATERI AN OR RECYCLING DEADLINE BEVERAGE CONTAIN
DETACHABLE RIN NNED: NOVEMBER 27, 1991
FULLY HALOGEN "ED: JANUARY 1,1994 FOOD OR DRINK
PLASTIC BAGS CYCLABLE: MAY 27,1992 PLASTIC RING CARR CYCLABLE: MAY 27,1992 POLYSTYRENE FOOD C
REQUIREMENTS & PROPOSALS The Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling was created to respond to mosi of the State's recycling, reuse, and reduction directives that are given in the Act. In addition to the duties and responsibilities provided in the Act, this Office must distribute to all counties and regions a periodic newsletter that contains recycling, reuse, and reduction information of general interest and must offer planning assistance in the development of waste reduction and recycling programs.
CYCLABLE: MAY 27, 1992
There should be a 30 percent reduction,
calculated by weight, in waste
received at municipal solid
waste landfills and at solid waste incinerators
by 1997.
“Specific wastes” that require
separate management provisions:
plastics used oil
waste tires lead-acid batteries
yard trash compost
white goods ir,
A statewide effort is required to develop markets for recyclables. The Office must maintain a directory of recycling and resource recovery systems and must provide each county/region with access to the directory. In addition to the directory, a copy of the Recycling Market Development Council’s initial and annual report on recycling activities in South Carolina must be made available to each county/region.
All state agencies under the direction of the Division of General Services of the Budget and Control Board must not only begin a solid waste recycling and
have recycled content. Further, all local government agencies must consider purchasing items that are recyclable or have recycled content.
The success of any county/regional recycling, reduction, and reuse program depends on public education. Therefore, each county/region is responsible for developing and implementing public education and awareness materials for its recycling, reduction, and reuse programs. These materials must be made available to private individuals, as well as commercialhndustrial businesses. In conjunction with educational materials, each countyhegion must ensure that recycling collection sites are readily accessible to the public.
reduction program but must give preference to procurements that are recyclable or -
EVALUATION The existing special waste program places disposal authorization on the Department of Health and Environmental Control. While this program does not usurp the landfill of its ultimate disposal approval authority, it bas given many landfill owners/operators the misconception of reduction of their liability. Further, this program has not adequately provided the actual landfill operators with current and accurate disposal information.
With the exception of used oil, South Carolina’s management program for the “specific wastes” banned from landfill disposal (that is: waste tires, lead-acid batteries, yard trash, and white goods) and for household hazardous wastes has been
tires: stockpiling and disposal. Both of these practices, if done improperly, can result in undesirable environmental and public health consequences. The use of
almost non-existent. For instance, only two management options existed for waste
waste tires as a material resource must become a viable option.
-
-
DIRECTIVES The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act directs each municipal landfill owner/operator to prepare a special waste analysis plan that addresses the parameters for which each waste is to be analyzed and the rationale for selecting these parameters. This plan must be submitted by November, 27, 1991, to the Department of Health and Environmental Control and meet its requirements.
Seven wastes have been classified as “specific wastes” that require separate management provisions by the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act. These “specific wastes” are plastics, used oil, waste tires, lead-acid batteries, yard trash, compost, and white goods. Of these seven wastes, used oil, waste tires, lead-acid batteries, yard trash, and white goods have been banned, on the deadlines listed here, from disposal in municipal solid waste landfills.
I NTHS SUBSEQUENT TO
LGATION OF WASTE
With regard to “specific wastes” banned from landfills, the Act requires regulations to be developed for the proper management of used oil, waste tires, lead-acid batteries, white goods, and yard trash/land-clearing debris.
For example, in December 1991, the Department of Health and Environmental Control prepared a report on waste tire management and disposal in the State. In this report, it was estimated that nearly 4 million waste tires were stockpiled in various locations around the State. During the year since the report was published, records indicate that approximately 3.6 million additional waste tires were generated. At this rate of approximately one waste tire per person per year, South Carolina will generate approximately 83 million more waste tires by the year 2010. If not adequately addressed, this solid waste management challenge will become a solid waste management nightmare.
With regard to waste tires, the Act establishes a $2 fee on each new tire sold in the State. From this fee, monies are generated for distribution to each county for the collection and disposal of waste tires generated within the county; for reimbursement of the administrative costs of the tire retailers or wholesalers; and for establishment of the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund. Grants funded by the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund and administered by the Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling are made available to local governments as they remove stockpiled waste tires and as they develop waste tire management alternatives.
FUTURE SOLID WASTE 69 MANAGEMENT
Currently, the Department of Health and Environmental Control has approved approximately 10 tire management facilities. These facilities offer management options that include using waste tires as a fuel in boilers, using waste tires as a substitute for gravel in septic tank drain lines, and using waste tires to produce artificial reefs in the ocean. Through the Waste Tire Grant Trust Fund program, construction and operation of waste tire disposal and recycling are considered for funding.
The Act also establishes a $2 fee on each white good - refrigerator, dishwasher, washing machine -purchased and on each lead-acid battery purchased. The monies collected from these fees, minus the administrative collection allowance, are credited to the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund which awards grants to assist local governments and regions in carrying out their responsibilities listed in this chapter.
-
With regard to waste oil or any similar lubricant, a fee of 8 cents is collected on each gallon sold in the State. Minus the administrative collection allowance, the monies collected will be credited to the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund where they are reserved in a separate account designated as the Petroleum Fund. Monies in the Petroleum Fund are distributed by the Office of Solid Waste and Recycling for public education, research, grants, and incentive programs. It is anticipated that these regulations will be promulgated during the 1993 Legislative Session.
The Department of Highways and Public Transportation has been given the responsibility of establishing at least one used oil collection center in every county.
REQUIREMENTS & PROPOSALS Each municipal solid waste landfill owner/operator must develop a special waste analysis plan as specified in the Act and must submit this plan to the county/region for incorporation into the countyhegion solid waste management plan. Thus, the county/region must incorporate the special waste analysis plan into its solid waste management plan.
Counties/regions must develop procedures to ensure that the “specific wastes” that are banned from landfill disposal are separated from the waste stream to be landfilled. These procedures must offer the residents of the area to be served an alternative to landfill disposal such as a recycling collection center or composting facility. -
with information concerning the proper management of household hazardous wastes. Additionally, the county/region must provide the residents of its service
The Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling must provide countiedregions - -
area an alternative to disposing of these household hazardous wastes in municipal solid waste landfills.
Import & Export of Solid Waste
EVALUATION Until recently, the import and export of solid waste in South Carolina have not involved significant quantities. Therefore, South Carolina’s lack of a system to monitor accurately the solid waste imported and exported has not been a problem.
DIRECTIVES The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act does not include any specific directives with regard to regulating the import and export of solid waste. The Act does establish, in addition to the landfill tipping fee, a $10-per-ton fee on all solid waste generated out of state and disposed in this State. However, if the generation state’s tipping fees for in-state or out-of-state solid waste disposal are higher than this State’s out-of-state fee, then the higher fee is imposed.
REQUIREMENTS & PROPOSALS Each solid waste management facility must keep records of the quantities of solid waste imported and exported from out-of-state to its facility. Annual compilations of these records must be submitted to the county/region for incorporation into the county/region plan. Additionally, these records must be available, upon request, to the Department of Health and Environmental Control.
Each countyhegion must include in its respective solid waste management plan information documenting the quantities of solid waste and recyclable materials that are imported and exported into its area. This information must specify how the wastes are managed - recycled, disposed, etc.
Full Cost Disclosure
EVALUATION The fact that South Carolina does not have an existing method from which the cost of solid waste management can be determined and publicly published has resulted in the general misconception that residents incur no costs for the management of their solid wastes. This misconception may generate public resistance to any additional taxes or user fees that are needed by a countyhegion to operate a solid waste management program which complies with the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act.
In addition to the landfill tipping fee,
a minimum $1 0-per-ton fee is
charged on all solid waste
generated out of state and disposed in South Carolina.
FUTURE SOLID WASTE 71 MANAGEMENT
Each countyhegion must
disclose the full cost of providing
solid waste management
services to each resident.
DIRECTIVES The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act states in its purpose that local governments and state agencies are required to determine the full cost of providing storage, collection, transport, separation, treatment, recycling, and disposal of solid waste in an environmentally safe manner. Each local government shall publish in a newspaper distributed in the area served, its full cost of solid waste management. To achieve uniformity statewide, the Act directs the Department of Health and Environmental Control to develop regulations establishing the method for local governments to use in calculating the full cost of solid waste management within their service area. It is anticipated that these regulations will be promulgated during the 1993 Legislative Session.
-
REQUIREMENTS & PROPOSALS Each solid waste management facility must provide its countykegion with a statement of the annual cost to each person the area served. Privately owned companies operating under an agreement to collect or dispose of solid waste shall assist and cooperate with the local countykegion to make the calculations or to provide the required cost information. Each countykegion must compile this information and include in its solid waste management plan the full cost of providing solid waste management services to each resident. Each local government shall publish in a newspaper distributed in the area served, its full cost of solid waste management.
Each countyhegion is responsible for providing to its area residents solid waste management services which satisfy the purpose of the Act and address the area’s solid waste management needs and concerns. In anticipation of the complexities of this task, the Act reiterates that each local government has the authority to enact such ordinances as may be necessary to carry out its responsibilities listed in this chapter. All ordinances must be consistent with State law, the South Carolina Solid Waste Management Plan, and the Department of Health and Environmental Control regulations.
The Act also charges the Department of Health and Environmental Control with -
providing each countyhegion with planning assistance and financial assistance. Each countyhegion will be provided with assistance from the Department of Health and Environmental Control during the development of its solid waste management plan. The Department of Health and Environmental Control is preparing a guidance document that will be made available to each countykegion in January 1993.
-
Additionally, the Department of Health and Environmental Control is charged with reviewing and providing comments on the final draft of each countykegion plan.
The Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling has staff available to assist the counties/regions with the planning of their recycling, reuse, and reduction efforts and with public education programs.
During the drafting of this Act, the Legislature realized that compliance with its provisions would require financial assistance and incentives be provided to the counties/regions. Therefore, the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund and Solid Waste Management Grant Program were established. Through the grant program, the Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling shall award grants to assist local governments and regions in carrying out their responsibilities listed in this chapter. Regulations that establish the grant application review procedure and the criteria for local governments to qualify for grants will be promulgated during the 1993 Legislative Session.
The evolution of South Carolina’s existing solid waste management practices and the State’s solid waste management needs and concerns have not been in sync. This dilemma should be rectified with the implementation of the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act that includes the following in its purpose:
protect the public health and safety, protect and preserve the environment of this State and recover resources that have the potential for further usefulness by providing for, in the most environmentally safe, economically feasible, and cost-effective manner, the storage, collection, transport, separation, treatment, processing, recycling, and disposal of solid waste
require local governments to adequately plan for and provide efficient, environmentally acceptable solid waste management services and programs
processed, and disposed of in a manner adequate to protect human health safety, welfare and the environment
encourage local governments to use all means reasonably available to promote efficient and proper methods of managing solid waste, that may include contracting with private entities to provide management services or operate management facilities on behalf of the local government, when it is cost effective to do so
to solid waste management
provide planning and financial assistance to local govemments for solid waste management.
ensure that solid waste is transported, stored, treated,
encourage local governments to pursue a regional approach
establish and maintain a cooperative state program to
Comprehensive planning by the countiedregions and the State should provide South Carolina with adequate solid waste management through 201 0 and beyond.
G O A L S , P O L I C I E S , S T R A T E G I E S , & B A R R I E R S
The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act designates a waste reduction goal and a waste recycling goal to which all of the State’s solid waste management endeavors must be directed. While reduction and recycling goals were established, it is important to note that waste reduction is achieved through four activities: source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting. Therefore efforts to meet the recycling goal will also assist in reaching the reduction goal.
The Act also establishes five policies to be incorporated into South Carolina5 solid waste management programs and to be used to achieve these goals. These policies must guide and influence all solid waste management decisions and actions, both on a state and county/regional level. The reduction and recycling goals and the respective five policies, along with suggested strategies for achieving the goals and implementing the policies, are listed in this chapter Possible barriers to achieving these goals are listed as well.
Reduction Goal
The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act states that South Carolina’s goal is to reduce, on a statewide per capita basis, the amount of solid waste being received at municipal solid waste landfills and solid waste incinerators, permitted after the effective date of this Act, by 30 percent. This 30 percent reduction is to be calculated by weight, using the 1993 fiscal year solid waste level, and achieved no later than six years, 1997, after the date of enactment of this Act.
GOALS, POLICIES,
BARRIERS 75 STRATEGIES &
76
Note: In a county or municipality where a recycling or reduction program is in place prior to 1993, the base figures for determining a 30 percent reduction goal are the weight of the solid waste reduced, recycled, or removed from the solid waste stream during one of the preceding two years in which the county or municipality added to the amount of solid waste currently being disposed of in municipal solid waste landfills together with the weight of solid waste reduced due to incineration.
In determining whether the waste reduction goal has been achieved, no more than 50 percent of the goal may be met by the removing yard trash, land-clearing debris, white goods, construction and demolition debris, and waste tires from the municipal solid waste stream. Waste reduction resulting from incineration may not account for more than 50 percent of a solid waste landfill’s effort toward the 30 percent reduction goal and only if the incineration is performed at a facility permitted prior to the effective date of this Act.
Information to assist counties/regions in quantifying their reduction efforts is included in Appendix D of this Plan.
The Act also states that South Carolina’s goal is to recycle, on a statewide basis, at least 25 percent, calculated by weight, of the total solid waste generated in this State not later than six years, 1997, after the date of enactment of this Act. This reduction is to be calculated using the fiscal year 1993 solid waste level.
Note: In a county or municipality where a recycling program is in place prior to 1993, the base figures for determining a 25 percent recycling goal is the weight of the solid waste recycled from the solid waste stream during one of the preceding two years in which the county or municipality added to the amount of solid waste currently being disposed of in municipal solid waste landfills together with the weight of solid waste reduced due to incineration.
In determining whether the solid waste recycling goal has been achieved, no more than 40 percent of the goal may be met by removing yard trash, land-clearing debris, and construction and demolition debris from the solid waste stream.
Information to assist counties/regions in quantifying their reduction efforts is included in Appendix D of this Plan.
Policies
1) It is the policy of this State to promote appropriate methods of solid waste management prior to opting for disposal in landfills, treatment or disposal by incineration or other treatment, storage, or disposal methods, and to assist local government with solid waste management functions. Furthermore, it is preferable to reduce the production and generation of waste at the source and to promote the reuse and recycling of materials rather than the treatment, storage, or disposal of wastes by landfill disposal, incineration, or other management methods designed to handle waste after it enters the waste stream.
0
2) It is the policy of this State that the methods of management of solid waste shall protect public health, safety, and the environment by employing the best available technology that is economically feasible for the control of pollution and the release of hazardous constituents into the environment. Solid waste management shall be implemented to maximize the reduction of solid waste through source reduction, reuse, and recycling.
3) It is the policy of this State to encourage research by private entities, by state agencies, and by state-supported educational institutions into the reduction of solid waste production and generation.
4) It is the policy of this State to encourage a regional approach to solid waste management.
5 ) It is the policy of this State that each county or region make every effort to meet, on an individual basis, the State solid waste recycling and reduction goals and that each county or region, and municipalities located therein, which meet this goal be financially rewarded by the State.
0
0
0
Strategies
SOURCE REDUCTION Solid waste originates from five basic sources: private residences, commercial businesses, industrial businesses, government, and agricultural businesses. These sources should be the targets of the following endeavors.
It is preferable to reduce the
production and generation of waste at the
source.
GOALS, POLICIES,
BARRIERS STRATEGIES & 77
The Solid Waste Trust Fund
supports research of innovative
source reduction practices.
Public education - The Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling is available to assist the countieshegions as they develop public education programs that introduce individuals to source reduction practices. These programs should provide information on the need for, the benefits of, the cost of, and the good will of source reduction.
The public education programs should contain consumer awareness information on the following activities that reduce solid waste generation:
Reduced Material Volume Examples:
-Purchase items with less packaging (buy in bulk) -Remove name from junk mail lists
Increased Product Lifetime Examples:
-Purchase durable rather than disposable goods - Rent rather than purchase seldom used tools/appliances
Decreased Consumption Examples:
- Repair and/or refurbish items rather than replacing them -Purchase used clothing, specifically for children who out grow
rather than wear out their clothes.
Technical Assistance - The Center for Waste Minimization is a free, non-regulatory service from which the State’s new and existing businesses can request technical assistance on waste reduction methods and strategies. The Center provides experienced personnel to conduct site-specific waste audits, to assimilate the information collected, and to suggest waste minimization alternatives. The Center also maintains case histories that are available to commercial and industrial businesses upon request.
Financial Incentives - The Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling has been designated by the Act to administer the Solid Waste Trust Fund. From this Fund monies are available to fund research of innovative source reduction practices. Research proposals by state-supported educational institutions should be submitted to the Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling to be considered for funding. Additionally, the Office has grant funds for which countieshegions can apply to finance source reduction programs. It is anticipated that regulations establishing the Solid Waste Management Grant Program will be promulgated during the 1993 Legislative Session.
Local governments can encourage source reduction with financial incentive programs that target all solid waste sources. The most widely used financial incentive involves variable waste disposal charges - per-container rates, local user fees, volume-based prices. This incentive is based on increased collection and disposal charges relative to increased waste generation.
Other financial incentives include tax credits/exemptions which may be given to businesses that successfully use solid waste reduction methods for manufacturing or consuming; per-unit taxes that establish different tax rates according to a specific category, material composition, or product size; and product-value taxes that are based on the cost of the product.
Set An Example - On or before November 27, 1993, the Governor’s Office, the General Assembly, the Judiciary, each state agency, and each state-supported institute of higher education shall establish and implement a solid waste reduction program for materials used in the course of agency operations. Solid waste reduction methods from this program will be shared with the counties/regions.
In conjunction with the State’s reduction efforts mandated by the Act, each local government should establish and implement a solid waste reduction program for materials used in the course of its operations. This program should include an initial assessment of solid waste generated, a review of standard operating procedures, and a determination of areas where source reduction is feasible. Suggested efforts include purchasing supplies in bulk, printing/writing/copying on both sides of a page, and using durable, rather than disposable beverage containers in the canteens. All source reduction efforts made by the local governments should be publicized, as well as included as examples in the local public education program.
REUSE The adage that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure has inspired many practices such as yard sales which can he categorized as reuse. The extension and perfection of these practices can be achieved with the following endeavors.
Public Education - Most individuals are knowledgeable about some practices involving reuse. Because most of these reuse practices have been motivated by economics, public education programs should also highlight the environmental benefit of reusing rather than disposing. Additionally, public education programs should introduce new and innovative reuse practices, such as donating left-over house paint to charities, and should emphasize reuse before recycling, such as using a grocery bag twice before recycling it.
The Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling is available to assist the counties/regions as they develop public education programs that introduce individuals to reuse practices.
Public Education programs should
introduce new and innovative reuse
practices and should emphasize
reuse before recycling.
GOALS, POLICIES,
BARRIERS STRATEGIES& 79
Countieslregions should develop
local expertise and secure viable
markets before beginning a
recycling program.
Technical Assistance - Two groups, the Center for Waste Minimization and the Recycling Market Development Council, are available to provide technical assistance to the State’s businesses on reuse. In addition to providing technical assistance on waste reduction methods, the Center attempts to locate markets for the wastes produced by the State’s businesses. Also, the Council has been mandated to assist in the development of markets for recovered materials.
Financial Incentives - The Solid Waste Trust Fund, administered by the Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling, has monies available to fund research of innovative waste reuse practices. Research proposals by state-supported educational institutions should be submitted to the Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling to be considered for funding. Additionally, the Office has grant funds for which countieshegions can apply to finance programs that sponsor waste reuse. It is anticipated that regulations establishing the Solid Waste Management Grant Program will be promulgated during the 1993 Legislative Session.
Local governments can encourage waste reuse through the implementation of variable waste disposal charges described in the Source Reduction section of this chapter. Local governments should recommend that commercial and industrial businesses find markets for their wastes. It is a financial incentive for businesses to generate a revenue-producing by-product rather than a waste which has a disposal fee.
-
Set An Example - Both local and State government agencies should assess the composition of their solid waste and determine ways that the solid waste can be reused, either within the agency or by another agency. Information on the reuse practices that are incorporated should be shared with other government agencies and should be publicized through the area’s public education programs.
RECYCLING Recycling has become a very important part of South Carolina’s integrated solid waste management program. No longer just paper drives for charities, current recycling efforts target waste streams such as waste oil, white goods, and lead-acid batteries. Because recycling has become more diversified, it is essential that each countyhegion wanting to develop a successful recycling program use the following endeavors.
Planning - Because recycling has received so much attention from the private sector and from municipalities, it is essential that each county/region evaluate all
- . ~~
existing recycling efforts before starting its own. The existing recycling efforts should be evaluated on the following aspects:
frequency of collection method of collection quantity and type of materials collected
* collection containers material markets
duplication of effort costs involved public education methods.
After evaluation, each countyhegion should meet with the sponsors of each recycling project. The coordination and standardization of these projects will contribute to the overall success of the county/region recycling program. Additionally, the countyhegion should determine how it must augment the existing efforts to result in combined efforts that meet the final goal of 25 percent of the waste stream recycled by 1997.
Counties/regions with little or no existing recycling efforts should coordinate with other countiedi-egions prior to starting a program. It is imperative to the success of the recycling program that these countieshegions develop local expertise and secure viable markets before beginning. Initially, each county/region should start with a small recycling program and perfect it before expanding and diversifying.
Public Education - The quality and effectiveness of public education and public involvement can decide the success or failure of a recycling program. The Office of Solid Waste Recycling and Reduction is available to assist each county/region in the development of its public education programs.
Further, this Office is required to produce a recycling curricula and to make it available to all schools, both public and private. It is anticipated that an approved curricula will be available for the 1993-94 School Year. Not only should the public education efforts encourage recycling, but they should also advocate the purchase of items with recycled content.
Technical Assistance - The purpose of the Recycling Market Development Council is to assist in the development of markets for recovered materials and products with recycled content in this State. In conjunction with this Council’s efforts, the Office of Solid Waste Recycling and Reduction maintains a directory of recycling and resource recovery systems. Both the Council and the Office are available to provide technical assistance to the counties/regions.
The Center for Waste Minimization offers technical assistance to commercial and industrial businesses that want to use a recovered material in place of a virgin material or that want to recycle their own wastes.
Financial Incentives - The Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling administers the Solid Waste Trust Fund from which monies are available to fund research of innovative recycling practices. Research proposals by state-supported educational institutions should be submitted to the Office of Solid Waste Reduction
Variable waste disposal charges can serve as a
financial incentive to recycle rather
than dispose.
and Recycling to be considered for funding. Additionally, the Office has grant funds for which countieshegions can apply to finance waste recycling programs. It is anticipated that regulations establishing the Solid Waste Management Grant Program will be promulgated during the 1993 Legislative Session.
Variable waste disposal charges, as described in the Source Reduction section of this chapter, can serve as a financial incentive to recycle rather than dispose. For commercial and industrial businesses, tax credits/exemptions may be given to businesses that use recovered materials in place of virgin materials, recycle the wastes they generate, and/or have in-house recycling programs available to employees.
Set An Enample - The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act requires the General Assembly, the Governor’s Office, the Judiciary, each state agency, and each state-supported institution of higher education to establish a source separation and recycling program by November 27, 1993. Each countyhegion should encourage the government agencies in its area to develop such a program as well. Information on the programs adopted by the State will be made available by the Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling.
The Act also requires the State’s procurement procedures to be revised by the Division of General Services to encourage the purchase of products with recycled content and/or materials which are recyclable instead of products made from virgin materials. These revised procurement procedures should be recommended to local government agencies as well. The Office will assist local governments in developing a procurement list of products with recycled content. As with any governmental efforts toward innovative solid waste management, recycling programs adopted by local governments should be publicized and shared.
COMFQSTING Composting of the organic portions of the waste stream can reduce waste volumes by 50 to 85 percent. Because of this, composting is becoming an important part of integrated solid waste management. With the May 27, 1993, ban on disposal of yard waste and land-clearing debris in municipal solid waste landfills, many new composting projects will be started. To increase the success of these projects, counties/regions should consider the following endeavors.
Planning - Prior to beginning a composting facility, each countyhegion should -
carefully review the composting regulations, which are expected to be promulgated during the 1993 Legislative Session. Also, each county/region should evaluate its solid waste management program to determine the compostable components of its
components; and the demand, or markets, for the final product. Finally, each county/region should conduct an economic feasibility study of operating a composting facility in its area.
- waste stream; the practicality of collecting, transporting, and processing these -
Public Education - Public education, which is very important to a countyhegion composting project, should include all facets of the project and should emphasize the use and/or availability of the final product. Although a county/region may choose not to compost the organic portions of its waste stream, it should still provide public education on backyard composting to the citizens of its area. The Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling is available to assist each countyhegion with all of its public education endeavors.
Financial Incentives - The Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling has been designated by the Act to administer the Solid Waste Trust Fund. From this Fund monies are available to fund research of innovative composting methods and compost uses. Research proposals by state-supported educational institutions should be submitted to the Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling to be considered for funding. Additionally, the Office has grant funds for which countieshegions can apply to finance composting projects. It is anticipated that regulations establishing the Solid Waste Management Grant Program will be promulgated during the 1993 Legislative Session.
Set An Example - The General Assembly, the Governor’s Office, the Judiciary, each state agency, and each state-supported institution of higher education are required by the Act to establish a recycling program for composting materials by November 27, 1993. Further, the Department of Highways and Public Transportation was required to prepare a report on the use of compost as a substitute for regular soil amendment products in all highway projects by November 27, 1991. Information on the recycling programs and the Department of Highways and Public Transportation’s report can be obtained from the Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling.
Local governments should also use locally generated compost in their municipal operations, such as for landscaping and construction. These efforts should be publicized and should be used as an example in the public education programs.
REGIONALIZATION Regionalization is not a strategy that directly contributes to waste reduction. However, regionalization allows a group of counties to be more efficient and effective in the activities that do accomplish waste reduction than they would be alone. Therefore, one of the policies of the Act is to encourage a regional approach to solid waste management.
The Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling has staff available to train county and local government representatives in establishing cooperative solid waste management regions. Also, the guidance document to assist countyhegions in developing individual solid waste management plans, available January 1993, will contain information on regionalization.
Regionalization allows a group of
counties to be more efficient and
effective in accomplishing
waste reduction and other
environmental endeavors.
In addition to training, incentives to regionalize will be offered through the grants programs. Grant applications for regions will be given review priority over applications for individual counties.
Regionalization with regard to solid waste management is a relatively new concept in South Carolina. With any new concept, there is often an initial reluctance to consider it as a viable strategy. However, regionalization offers both metropolitan and rural counties a number of potential advantages in solid waste management. Some of these advantages are outlined here.
Economies of Scale - Probably the biggest benefit regionalization offers individual counties is the potential to provide its citizens solid waste management services at a cost less than would be required if the services were provided for and by the county only. Because the sophistication of and quantity of the required services have increased with the passage of the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act and with the promulgation of regulations pursuant to this Act, the cost of solid waste management is increasing. While solid waste management costs will still increase, this increase will be less per capita on a regional basis than per capita on a county basis.
For example, municipal solid waste landfills must comply with the criteria specified in Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Multi-cost modeling performed by SCS Engineers of Cincinnati, Ohio, resulted in the following costs for the siting, construction, operation, and closure of a 59-acre municipal solid waste landfill on a 500-acre site.
Based on these hypothetical model results, landfill usagekosts would be optimized when waste receipt is approximately 750 tons per day. This implies a service area with a population of 187,500. In 1990, only four counties, Charleston, Greenville, Richland, and Spartanburg, had populations equal to or greater than that amount. Based on population projections for 2010, only seven counties, Berkeley,
Charleston, Greenville, Horry, Lexington, Richland, and Spartanburg, will have populations equal to or greater than that amount. Therefore, for the majority of counties, optimization of landfill costs can only be achieved through regionalization.
Improved Comprehensive Services - A group of counties or region is able to offer its citizens a better quality and a greater quantity of solid waste management services than an individual county, particularly one that is rural and has a low economic base. By working together, counties will have greater technical resources, greater staff availability, greater funding capabilities, greater procurement leverage, and greater ability to secure markets for recovered materials. Additionally, a region will have greater flexibility in siting solid waste management facilities.
Barriers always exist to achieving any goal or to implementing any policy. With regard to the goals and policies of the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act, possible harriers are listed here. By considering and planning for these bamers, countieshegions will improve their solid waste management program.
PUBLIC MINDSET Probably the largest barrier for any county or region will be the mindset of its citizens, businesses, and political leaders. “But I have done it this way for 20 years” will be the attitude of the majority of the public. Changing the existing social and cultural values - convenience, time savings, and newness in consumer products -of the people of this State will be an immense task. Persuading businesses to invest now in waste reduction activities that may save money later will be difficult. Also, convincing political leaders that solid waste management includes reduction activities will take time. Therefore, it is necessary to mount a very aggressive public education campaign that stresses a new environmental ethic and that recognizes all social, economic, cultural, and ethnic groups.
POLITICAL HIERARCHY AND HISTORY In general, local govemments are opposed to relinquishing responsibility to any other governmental entity. They fear that the loss of responsibility implies the loss of control. With regard to solid waste management services, the counties and local municipalities have always been responsible for providing these services for the citizens of their areas. Consequently, the concept of regional solid waste management may be met with initial resistance. Regionalization must be introduced with a portfolio of successful case studies, economic advantages specific to the counties proposed for the region, and information on the legal considerations.
It is necessary to mount a very
aggressive public education
campaign that stresses a new environmental ethic and that recognizes all
social, economic, cultural, and ethnic
groups.
Based on hundreds of years of history, local governments have established relationships with neighboring local governments. If these relationships establish a precedence of not working together, this will be a difficult obstacle to overcome. Therefore, all attempts at regionalization should consider these historical relationships. In difficult instances, a third-party facilitator, such as the Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling, may prove useful during preliminary discussions on regionalization.
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS Solid waste reduction activities (source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting) cost. They cost the counties that conduct public education programs, that provide technical assistance to commercial and industrial businesses, that build and operate materials recovery facilities, that pay reclaimers to process the recyclable materials, that build and operate composting facilities, and that provide the remainder of the source reduction activities. They cost the commercial and industrial businesses that change their processes to minimize waste generation or to produce a marketable by-product. Ultimately, they cost the citizens of each service area and the consumers who purchase the products.
During prosperous economic times, these up-front solid waste reduction costs may be more easily funded and therefore more acceptable. However, during less prosperous economic times, these costs may be considered burdensome and unnecessary. Therefore, it is essential that each county/region has public education programs to emphasize the need for environmental protection and the fact that a clean environment is priceless.
__
PROGRESS EVALUATION As each countyhegion incorporates waste reduction strategies in its solid waste management program, it will seek to evaluate the success of these strategies. This evaluation will require a baseline from which the results can be measured. Because only a few counties have any data and because this data is limited, a realistic evaluation of the success will not be possible for several years. Even in several years, it will be difficult to completely evaluate certain strategies, such as source reduction, because of their complex nature. The inability to evaluate strategies successfully may deflate the enthusiasm of countyhegion officials and the program participants. Therefore, it will be necessary to implement an evaluation system which not only quantifies the success but qualifies it as well.
P U B L I C P A R T I C I P A T I O N & P L A N R E V I S I O N
Planning is a continuous process not a final product. To ensure that solid waste management planning remains an active process in South Carolina, the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act requires the Department of Health and Environmental Control to submit an annual solid waste management report to the Governor and the General Assembly. This report will include all revisions to the South Carolina Solid Waste Management Plan and a description and evaluation of the progress made in implementing the Plan. The Department of Health and Environmental Control will seek public participation during the drafting of the annual revisions, as it did during the drafting of the Plan.
This chapter highlights the Department’s efforts to seek public involvement during the drafting of the Plan and proposed efforts to seek public participation during the drafting of the annual revisions. This chapter also outlines the subject areas in which annual revisions will be necessary.
Public Participation
One of the most important factors contributing to the acceptance of any planning document is public involvement. The Department of Health and Environmental Control encouraged and sought public input before and during the process of writing this Plan, and will continue to seek public input during the annual Plan revision process. The Department’s efforts target the countyhegion solid waste officials and are described here.
SCOPING MEETINGS The Department of Health and Environmental Control’s first action was to send each county administrator in the State a letter stating the Department would be available to meet with county representatives to discuss the solid waste management issues and concerns that had arisen due to the enactment of the Solid
a7 PUBLK PARTICIPATION & PL*N REVISION
Waste Policy and Management Act. As an attachment to this letter, the Department forwarded a copy of Sections of the Act1 that require and define the State and county/region solid waste management plans. Letters of this nature were also sent to the executive directors of each Council of Government in the State.
In response to the Department’s letter, many county and Council of Government officials responded and requested meetings. The Department met with representatives of approximately 40 counties, seven Councils of Government, and the Association of Counties. During these scoping meetings, the Department had the opportunity to discuss specific solid waste management issues with local government officials. Information presented and concerns expressed by each county were documented by the Department.
The Department found the scoping meetings useful and informative, and will continue to hold similar meetings and receive public input prior to drafting the annual revisions and completing the annual report.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SURVEYS A solid waste management survey was developed and sent to each county. This survey was designed to assist the Department in acquiring the most current solid waste management data, to solicit from the counties solid waste management planning suggestions, and to encourage county officials to obtain a comprehensive grasp of all solid waste management matters in their area, not just those sponsored by the county. Of the State’s 46 counties, 38 returned the surveys to the Department.
While the Department did not obtain the information for which it had hoped, the Department believes that a county/region survey can be a useful method of acquiring solid waste management data. Therefore, the Department will revise the survey and use it to gather information not submitted on the first survey form and to obtain countyhegion input on current solid waste management issues and concerns. Survey results will be used in drafting the annual revisions.
PRELIMINARY COMMENT Using the concerns expressed during the scoping meetings and the suggestions and information from the completed surveys, the Department drafted the Plan. As each chapter of the Plan was completed, it was forwarded to the Councils of Government, the Municipal Association, the Association of Counties, the Solid Waste Advisory Council, and the solid waste representative in each county for review and comment. The Department assessed all comments that were received and revised the final draft of the Plan as appropriate.
’ Solid Waste Policy and Management Act, Sections 44-96-60(A) and 44-96-80
This method of receiving preliminary comment seemed to be effective, and the Department will continue to use this format to obtain preliminary comments during the drafting of the annual revisions. Also, preliminary comments will be solicited from private companies, organizations, and individuals who have requested to be included in this phase of public participation.
Public Notice
A notification of the final draft of the Plan was published in the August 28, 1992, edition of the State Register. This notification stated that the Department would accept written comments on the final draft through September 30, 1992. The Department considered all written comments received prior to the specified deadline and incorporated the comments that had merit into the final plan.
The Department will publish in the State Register notification of the finalization of each annual draft report and each draft revision to the Plan, and a deadline for receiving written comments.
Revision Procedures
The statewide implementation of the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act will generate additional solid waste management data, and additional solid waste management issues and concerns. Furthermore, new technology will be developed in response to stricter regulations and to increasing costs of solid waste management. Therefore, annual revisions will be necessary to allow the Plan to remain a current and useful document.
REVISION OF DATA The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act establishes fiscal year 1993 as the base year from which countieshegions are to determine their compliance with the reduction and recycling goals. The countieshegions will inventory the types and amounts of solid waste received, recycled, incinerated, composted, or disposed at the solid waste management facilities in their service area during the 1993 and each subsequent fiscal year. As this data becomes available, countiesh-egions will submit this information annually to the Department which will use it in revising the existing figures and future projections presented in the Plan.
89 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION & PLAN REVISION
REVISION OF STRATEGIES The Plan suggests many strategies to assist the countieshegions in meeting the reduction and recycling goals, and in implementing the policies of the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act. The success of these strategies can only be determined through their use and implementation. Therefore, the Department will encourage incorporating these strategies in the solid waste management plans of the countieshegions. After a sufficient trial period, the Department will solicit feedback on these strategies and suggestions for additional projects. The Department will assimilate this information as it becomes available from the countieskegions and use it during the annual Plan revision process.
Conclusion
The Department of Health and Environmental Control made efforts to obtain the most current solid waste management data for the State and to involve the public before and during the drafting of the Plan. While a final Plan has been completed, the Department hopes to continue to refine the data and projections in the Plan and to receive public input that will be incorporated during the Plan’s annual revision process.
The Department will prepare annual revisions, as required by the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act, for 1993,1994,1995, and 1996. However, the Department will prepare a new plan for 1997. This Plan will be based on the 1992 Plan, will incorporate the appropriate annual revisions, and will assess the State’s success in achieving the reduction and recycling goals. Most importantly, the 1997 Plan will establish new and revised goals to further reduce the flow of solid waste being disposed in municipal solid waste landfills and being combusted in municipal solid waste incinerators.
F I S C A L I M P A C T I N F O R M A T I O N
The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act’ requires that the Plan include a fiscal impact statement identifiing the costs incurred by the Department of Health and Environmental Control in preparing the Plan, the costs incurred in performing all of the Department’s duties and responsibilities under the Act, including the number of new employees that may be necessary, and an estimate of the revenues which will be raised by the various fees authorized by the Act. These costs, information on the new employee positions, the estimated revenues, and a brief explanation of each are presented in this chaptel:
Plan Preparation Costs
The draft text of the Plan was written by the Department of Health and Environmental Control. A consultant was hired to edit the draft Plan, generate appropriate graphs and charts for the Plan, and coordinate the printing of the Plan. Therefore, the following total Plan preparation cost is the sum of the Department’s costs which include salaries, equipment, supplies, rent, and training and the consultant’s costs which include printing. The consultant’s costs are referred to as a contractual cost.
$79,191
’ 1976, Code of Laws, Solid Waste Policy and Management Act, Section 44-96-60 91 FISCAL IMPACT INFORMATION
The Department of Health and Environmental Control began implementation of the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act in September 1991. Therefore, the following costs were incurred by the Department during the 1992 fiscal year.
New Employee Positions
The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act charges the Department of Health and Environmental Control with numerous duties and responsibilities. Because of the complexity and diversity of these duties and responsibilities, the Department has established 51 new positions. Of these 51 positions, nine are non-regulatory and are in the Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling. The remaining 42 positions are regulatory.
Estimated Revenues
The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act imposes fees in association with the purchase of lead-acid batteries, white goods, tires, and motor oil or similar lubricant. The revenue generated from the collection of these fees during the 1992 fiscal year was used to project the following estimated revenue for the 1993 fiscal year.
, . .
These monies are collected by the South Carolina Tax Commission and credited to the Solid Waste Trust Fund. The Solid Waste Trust Fund is used to fund:
Research by state-supported educational institutions Activities of the Recycling Market Development Council Implementation of the provisions of the Act by the Department of Health
Demonstration projects or pilot programs conducted by local governments Grants to local governments to implement their responsibilities under
Start-up administrative costs of the Tax Commission and the
and Environmental Control
the Act
State Treasurer, for fee collection.
Conclusion
The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act requires state agencies to determine and disclose the full cost of providing solid waste management. Therefore, this chapter has identified the Department’s costs over the first year of implementing the duties and responsibilities of the Act and has projected the revenues that will be collected during the next fiscal year.
93 FISCAL IMPACT INFORMATION
.I
ORDINANCE PROVISIONS BULK CONTAINERS
Only household wastes can be disposed in containers. Private collectors are prohibited from using the containers. Scavenging is not allowed. Non-county residents are prohibited from using the containers. No bulk materials, such as brush, demolition debris, dead animals can be
No burning of wastes is allowed either in the containers or adjacent
Flammable materials are not to be disposed in or adjacent to
Any act that would damage the containers is prohibited. All wastes brought to the collection site must be disposed in
No industrial or hazardous wastes can be disposed in the containers.
placed in or adjacent to the containers.
to them.
the containers.
the containers.
LANDFILLS No persons shall loiter or trespass on the site. Open trucks arriving at the landfill must have the waste covered. No liquid or chemical waste can be accepted without prior approval. Wastes can be brought to the site only during posted times of operation. No dumping is to occur in unauthorized areas of the landfill. No refuse may be dumped on the working face from private automobiles. Fees are to be charged on the basis of whether the wastes are received in
the compacted state, the uncompacted state, or require special handling.
COLLECTION No private collectors can operate without permit. A performance bond equal to the gross income of the previous year is
Permits must be renewed annually. A fee must be paid for each new or renewed permit. Permits may be suspended or revoked for violation of any local or state
Collectors must dispose of their waste in a manner and location approved
required of each permitted private collector.
regulation or law.
by the county and the State Department of Health and Environmental Control.
Appendix A Examples of
Typical Local
Ordinance Provisions
APPENDIX A 95
All open vehicles must have the waste covered All vehicles must be constructed to prevent leakage. Spillage of hazardous and non-hazardous materials must be cleaned up at
A legend on the side of the vehicle must be displayed identifying the name the expense of the collector.
of the collector and the vehicle capacity.
STORAGE Approved storage containers must be used. Accumulation of wastes in a manner that will provide harborage and
breeding of vermin and rodents will constitute a violation.
DOMESTIC WASTE PERMITS (DWP) PERMIT # DWP-001
DWP-035 DWP-029
DWP-036 DWP-038 DWP-041
DWP-046 DWP-045
DWP-050 DWP-051 DWP-052 DWP-057 DWP-058 DWP-059 DWP-060 DWP-065
DWP-070 DWP-072
DWP-068
DWP-078 DWP-081 DWP-083 DWP-084 DWP-086 DWP-087 DWP-088 DWP-089 DWP-091 DWP-092 DWP-098 DWP-099 DWP-100 DWP- 101 DWP-102 DWP-103 DWP-105 DWP-109 DWP-110 DWP-112 DWP-114 DWP-115
FACILITY BARNWELL COUNTY CHEROKEE COUNTY
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY LEE COUNTY OCONEE COUNTY CALHOUN COUNTY ANDERSON COUNTY LAURENS COUNTY ORANGEBURG COUNTY BAMBERG COUNTY CLEMSON-CENTRAL CLARENDON COUNTY GEORGETOWN COUNTY DARLINGTON COUNTY
MARION COUNTY
AIKEN COUNTY SPARTANBURG COUNTY CHESTER COUNTY BEES FERRY ROAD OCONEE COUNTY PICKENS COUNTY SAVANNAH RIVER ENOREE-GREENVILLE COUNTY HORRY COUNTY SUMTER COUNTY PALMETTO WASTE MGT. FORT JACKSON
KERSHAW COUNTY
RICHLAND COUNTY
CITY OF GREENVILLE
CAMP CROFT GREENWOOD COUNTY ANDERSON COUNTY APPLETON LANDFILL YORK COUNTY BERKELEY COUNTY TRI-COUNTY ABBEVILLE COUNTY HICKORY HILL WASTE MGT. HORRY COUNTY ANDERSON COUNTY
COUNTY BARNWELL CHEROKEE KERSHAW CHESTERFIELD LEE OCONEE CALHOUN ANDERSON LA u R E N s ORANGEBURG B AMBERG
PICKENS CLARENDON GEORGETOWN D ARLINGTON RICHLAND MARION GREENVILLE AIKEN SPARTANBURG CHESTER CHARLESTON OCONEE PICKENS AIKEN GREENVILLE HORRY SUMTER SPARTANBURG RICHLAND SPARTANBURG GREENWOOD ANDERSON ALLEND ALE
YORK BERKELEY EDGEFIELD ABBEVILLE JASPER HORRY ANDERSON
APPENDIX B Permitted __
Landfills
97 APPENDIX B
DWP-116 DWP-117 DWP-118 DWP-119 DWP-120 DWP-121 DWP-123 DWP-124 DWP-125 DWP- 126 DWP- 127 DWP-128 DWP-130 DWP-132 DWP-133 DWP-134 DWP-135 DWP-136
UNION COUNTY NEWBERRY COUNTY DILLON COUNTY HAMFTON COUNTY LANCASTER COUNTY COLLETON COUNTY AIKEN COUNTY BEES FERRY FLORENCE COUNTY SCREAMING EAGLE RD LEXINGTON COUNTY CHESTERFIELD COUNTY CHAMBERS OAKRIDGE MARLBORO COUNTY WILLIAMSBURG NORTHEAST CCC GREENWOOD COUNTY MAWS
INDUSTRIAL WASTE PERMITS (IWP) PERMIT # FACILITY IWP-009 URGUHART STA. EXT. ASH LF IWP-033 OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS IWP-049 STONE CONTAINER CORP. IWP-075 E I DUPONT DENEMOURS IWP-084 I"AT BIO-SYNTHETICS IWP-119 S o ~ o c o PRODUCTS IWP-120 TORRINGTON COMPANY IWP- 124 CAROLINA EASTMAN Co. IWP-135 J P STEVENS & COMPANY IWP-138 CELANESE FIBERS, INC. IWP-141 BOWATERS CAROLINA CORP. IWP- 143 ALLIED COMPANY IWP-146 NAT'L STARCH & CHEMICAL IWP-162 GS R o o m c PRODUCTS Co. IWP-178 ETHYL CORPORATION IWP-186 S.C. PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY.
IWP-188 WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES IWP- 189 MICHELIN AMERICANS R&D IWP-190 INTERNATIONAL PAPER Co. IWP-191 SCE&G COMPANY
IWP- 187 UNION CAMP CORP.
UNION NEWBERRY DILLON HAMPTON LANCASTER COLLETON AIKEN CHARLESTON FLORENCE RICHLAND LEXINGTON CHESTERFIELD DORCHESTER MARLBORO WILLIAMSBURG RICH LAND GREENWOOD LEE
COUNTY AIKEN AIKEN FLORENCE KERSHAW WILLIAMSBURC DARLINGTON LA u R E N s CALHOUN OCONEE
YORK LEXINGTON SPARTANBURG CHARLESTON ORANGEBURG BERKELEY RICH LAND CHESTER LAURENS GEORGETOWN BERKELEY
YORK
IWP- 192 IWP-193 IWP-198 I w P - 2 0 0 IWP-201 IWP-206 IWP-210 IWP-211 IWP-217 IWP-218 IWP-219 IWP-220 IWP-223 IWP-224 IWP-228 IWP-234 IWP-235 IWP-236 IWP-237 IWP-238 IWP-239 IWP-240 IWP-241 IWP-242 IWP-243
DUKE POWER - CATAWBA DUKE POWER - BAD CREEK UNION CAMP CORPORATION ANCHOR CONTINENTAL INC. WESTVACO CORPORATION NUCOR STEEL LF SRS D-F STEAMLINE SITE SRS, 200-H SITE SRS, Z-AREA SALTSTONE STONE CONTAINER CORP. SRS 200-F SITE, 1-4 SCE&G, MCMEEKIN STATION CAROLINA GRADING, INC. J. DAVID MOORE INERT SITE KOHLER COMPANY DUKE POWER - BAD CREEK
GREENWOOD Co. LANDFILL SOUTHERN BRICK LANDFILL WESTOE PLANTATION LAND Co DUKE POWER - OCONEE NUCLEAR OWENS CORNING FIBERGLASS OWEN INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS GWALIA, BARITE HILL GOLD MI) WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES, INC.
BATESBURG INDST. WASTE
CELLULOSICKONSTRUCTION WASTE PERMITS (CWP) PERMIT # FACILITY CWP-001 SUMTER COUNTY CWP-002 POPE CONSTRUCTION
CWP-004 NEWBERRY COUNTY CWP-005 CUTSHAW LANDFILL CWP-006 BARNWELL RESOURCES CWP-007 JASPER COUNTY CWP-008 GEORGIA PACIFIC Co. CWP-009 CITY OF ORANGEBURG CWP-010 DARLINGTON VEENER CWP-011 GEORGIA PACIFIC CWP-012 TOWN OF GREAT FALLS
CWP-014 AIKEN COUNTY CIC
CWP-003 TOWN OF MCCORMICK
CWP-013 CITY OF WOODRUFF
YORK OCONEE BAMBERG RICHLAND BERKELEY DARLINGTON AIKEN AIKEN AIKEN FLORENCE AIKEN LEXINGTON RICHLAND SPARTANBURG SPARTANBURG OCONEE LEXINGTON GREENWOOD GREENWOOD DORCHESTER OCONEE ANDERSON LEXINGTON MCCORMICK MARLBORO
COUNTY SUMTER
MCCORMICK NEWBERRY YORK BEAUFORT JASPER ORANGEBURG ORANGEBURG DARLINGTON NEWBERRY CHESTER SPARTANBURG AIKEN
YORK
99
CWP-015 CWP-016 CWP-017 CWP-018 CWP-019 CWP-020 CWP-021 CWP-022 CWP-023 CWP-024 CWP-025 CWP-026 CWP-027 CWP-028 CWP-029 CWP-030 CWP-03 1 CWP-032 CWP-033 CWP-034 CWP-035
PEE DEE ENVIRO SERVICES CLARENDON COUNTY C/C ROGERS CELLULOSIC LF CITY OF ABBEVILLE AMOCO USMC RECRUIT DEPOT UNION CAMP CORP
SPRING INDUSTRIES, INC.
CITY OF ROCK HILL GEORGIA-PACFIC GEORGETOWN COUNTY CP&L CP&L SRS, BURN ROAD DARLINGTON COUNTY GEORGIA PACIFIC TC 126, INC. SANTEE COOPER GENERAL ELECTRIC
CITY OF GAFFNEY
CITY OF HOLLY HILL
INERT WASTE PERMITS (NWP) PERMIT # FACILITY NWP-001 MUSTARD COLEMAN "-002 RICHTEX BRICK "-003 US #1 FLEA MARKET "-004 PALMETTO BRICK Co NWP-005 SOUTHEASTERN CONCRETE PRODUCTS NWP-006 SOUTHEASTERN CLAY I"-007 W.R. GRACE "-008 KENTUCKY-TENN CLAY
FLORENCE CLARENDON YORK ABBEVILLE GREENVILLE BEAUFORT SALUDA CHEROKEE LANCASTER ORANGEBURG YORK BERKELEY GEORGETOWN DARLINGTON DARLINGTON AIKEN DARLINGTON CLARENDON
BERKELEY GRBENVILLE
-
YORK
C 0 IJ N T Y LEXINGTON RICHLAND LEXINGTON MARLBORO LEXINGTON AIKEN AIKEN AIKEN
ASH MONOFILL PERMITS (AMP) PERMIT # FACILITY COUNTY AMP-001 SANDY PINES LANDFILL DORCHESTER -
AMP-002 BEES FERRY LANDFILL CHARLESTON
- SLUDGE MONOFILL PERMITS (SMP) - PERMIT # FACILITY COUNTY SMP-001 GREER COM PUBLIC WORKS SPARTANBURG SMP-003 HORSE CREEK POLLUTION CONTROL AIKEN
OPEN DUMPS AND/OR LANDFILLS ABBEVILLE Co. LANDFILL #~/CALHOUN FALLS
BEATTY (DAVID) LANDFILL AIKEN COUNTY LANDFILL AIKEN COUNTY LANDFILL (FORMER) GRANITEVILLE CO/VAUCLUSE LANDFILL NORTH AUGUSTA CITY DUMP OLD LANGLEY DUMPMIDLAND VALLEY H.S. OLD SHAWS CREEK DUMP WAGENER DISPOSAL SITE
ANDERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY CLEMSON UNIVERSITY LANDFILL-IWP- 129 OLD ANDERSON CITY DUMP (ELROD SITE) BAMBERG COUNTY LANDFILL BAMBERG TOWN DUMP BARNWELL COUNTY LANDFILL BARNWELL TOWN DUMP OLD BARNWELL Co. DUMP BEAUFORT COUNTY LANDFILL BERKELEY COUNTY LANDFILL TRIDENT NORTH LANDFILL CALHOUN COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL CHARLESTON LANDFILL CHARLESTON SHREDDER SITE SCA-CHARLESTON DISPOSAL TRIDENT LANDFILL DWP-005 GREAT FALLS DUMP LANDFILL INC
RUBY LANDFILL COLLETON COUNTY LANDFILL DARLINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL CHARLESTON LANDFILL DORCHESTER LANDFILL S.C. SCA SERVICES EVERETTE SCHOOL CITY OF FLORENCEKAMLIN LANDFILL FLORENCE COUNTY LANDFILL BLACKBERRY VALLEY LANDFILL BLUE RIDGE LANDFILL
ABBEVILLE CO. LANDFILL #2/ANTREVILLE
WILLISTON TOWN DUMP
OLD CHERAW CITY DUMP
COUNTY ABBEVILLE ABBEVILLE ABBEVILLE AIKEN AIKEN AIKEN AIKEN AIKEN AIKEN AIKEN AIKEN ANDERSON ANDERSON ANDERSON BAMBERG BAMBERG BARNWELL BARNWELL BARNWELL BEAUFORT BERKELEY BERKELEY C A L H o u N CHARLESTON CHARLESTON CHARLESTON CHARLESTON CHESTER CHESTER CHESTERFIELD CHESTERFIELD COLLETON DARLINGTON DORCHESTER DORCHESTER DORCHESTER FAIRFIELD FLORENCE FLORENCE GREENVILLE GREENVILLE
Appendix C Open Dumps
andlor Landfills Included
on the State's CERCLA Site
Inventory (by county)
101 APPENDIX C
CITY OF GREENVILLE DUMP GREENVILLE CO/PIEDMONT LANDFILL GROCE ROAD LANDFILL #22 NASH MILL ROAD DUMP OLD SIMPSONVILLE DUMP #2 SIMPSONVILLE (OLD) DUMP SIMPSONWLLE DUMP #3 GREENWOOD COUNTY LANDFILL
LANCASTER CITY LANDFILL WARE SHOALS CITY DUMP BRAY PARK DUMP LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL OLD CAYCE DUMP SITE MARION COUNTY SITE MARLBORO COUNTY LANDFILL TOWN OF MCCORMICK LANDFILL WHITMIRE CITY LANDFILL OCONEE COUNTY LANDFILL ELLOREE TOWN LANDFILL CITY VIEW CIRCLE DUMP EASLEY-PICKENS Co LANDFILL DWP-034 HEDDEN DUMP Sm PICKENS COUNTY LANDFILL COLUMBIA LANDFILL RICHLAND COUNTY LANDFILL YANDLE BROTHERS LANDFILL CAMP CROFT LANDFILL OLD LYMAN DUMP OLD STARTEX SPARTANBURG Co LANDFILL OLD SUMTER MUNICIPAL LANDFILL SLJMTER ~NERT Sm WILLIAMSBURG Co. INDUSTRLAL LANDFILL #1
KERSHAW COUNTY LANDFILL
GREENVILLE GREENVILLE GREENVILLE GREENVILLE GREEN v I L L E GREENVILLE GREENVILLE GREENWOOD KERSHAW LANC ASTER LAUKENS LEXINGTON LEXINGTON LEXINGTON MARION MARLBORO MCCORMICK NEWBERRY OCONEE ORANGEBURG PICKENS PICKENS PICKENS PICKENS RICHLAND RICHLAND RICHLAND SPARTANBURG SPARTANBURG SPARTANBURG SUMTER SUMTER WILLIAMSBURG
__
SAMPLE 1
REDUCTION GOAL CALCULATION Carolina County’s* municipal solid waste landfill receives non-hazardous solid waste from all its residents and many of the businesses in the county. Carolina County’s population is 100,000 in 1993 and projected to be 110,000 in 1997. Landfill receipts document that the landfill received, in 1993, 150,000 tons of solid waste from area residents, commercial businesses, and industrial businesses. Carolina County officials project the life of the landfill to be 10 years. How much solid waste can Carolina County receive at its landfill in 1997 and still meet the 30 percent reduction goal of the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act?
Carolina County’s 1993 Data Population: 100,000 residents Total amount of solid waste received at landfill: 150,000 tons
150,000 tons x 2,000 pounddton = 300,000,000 pounds Per capita generation rate:
Annual rate:
Daily rate: 300,000,000 pounds c 100,000 residents = 3,000 pounds/resident/year
3,000 pounds/resident/year + 365 days/year = 8.22 pounds/resident/day Amount of solid waste to be reduced from the 1997 total amount of solid waste
projected to be received at Carolina County landfill: 150,000 x 30% = 45,000 tons
- Carolina County’s 1997 Data Population: 110,000 Total amount of solid waste projected to be received at landfill
-No waste reduction efforts: 110,000 residents x 3,000 pounddresident = 330,000,000 pounds 330,000,000 pounds + 2,000 pounddton = 165,000 tons
Total amount of solid waste projected to be received at landfill - Using waste reduction efforts and achieving 30% waste reduction goal: 165,000 - 45,000 = 120,000 tons
clearing debris, white goods, construction and demolition debris, and waste tires from the municipal solid waste stream - Must be documented 45,000 x 50% = 22,500 tons
Amount of reduction goal that can be met by the diversion of yard trash, land-
Appendix D How to
Calculate Reduction
& Recycling
Efforts
*Carolina County is a fictitious county name used here for reference
only. Thefigures presented serve as an
example of how a typical South Carolina county will calculate its efforts
to meet the reduction and recycling goals
established in the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act.
103 PPEND
WORKSHEET TO DETERMINE REDUCTION EFFORTS
1993 Population (line 1)
1993 Solid waste amount in tons (line 2)
1993 Solid waste amount in pounds (line 3) (line 2) x 2,000 pounddton = (line 3)
Annual per capita generation rate in pounds (line 3) + (line 1) = (line 4)
(line 4)
Daily per capita generation rate in pounds (line 4) i 365 daydyear = (line 5 )
(line 5 )
Solid waste reduction goal (30%) in tons (line 2) x 0.30 = (line 6)
(line 6 )
1997 Projected population (line 7)
1997 Projected solid waste amount in tons (line 8) -No waste reduction efforts [(line 7) x (line 4)) + 2,000 pounddton = (line 8)
1997 Projected solid waste amount in tons that can be received at municipal solid waste landfill and reduction goal (30%) met (line 8) - (line 6) = (line 9)
(line 9)
Amount of reduction goal that can be met by the diversion of yard trash, land-clearing debris, white goods, construction and demolition debris, and waste tires from the municipal solid waste stream -Must be documented (line 10) (line 6) x 0.5 = (line 10)
Please note that reduction efforts include source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting.
SAMPLE 2
RECYCLING GOAL CALCULATION Using the data presented, how much of the 1997 waste stream must be recycled for Carolina County to meet the recycling goal of 25 percent, established by the Solid Waste Policy and Management Act?
Carolina County's 1993 Data Population: 100,000 residents Total amount of solid waste received at landfill: 150,000 tons Amount of solid waste to be recycled from the 1997 total amount of solid waste
projected to be received at Carolina County landfill -Must be documented 150,000 x 25% = 37,500 tons
Carolina County's 1997 Data Population: 110,000 Total amount of solid waste projected to be received at landfill
-No recycling efforts: 165,000 tons
- Using recycling efforts and achieving 25% recycling goal: 165,000 - 37,500 = 127,500 tons
land-clearing debris, and construction and demolition debris from the municipal solid waste stream - Must be documented 37,500 x 40% = 15,000 tons
Total amount of solid waste projected to be received at landfill
Amount of recycling goal that can be met by the diversion of yard trash,
WORKSHEET TO DETERMINE RECYCLING EFFORTS
1993 Population
1993 Solid waste amount in tons
1993 Solid waste amount in pounds (line 2) x 2,000 poundshon = (line 3)
Annual per capita generation rate in pounds (line 3) + (line 1) = (line 4)
Solid waste recycling goal (25%) in tons (line 2) x 0.25 = (line 5)
1997 Projected population
1997 Projected solid waste amount in tons -No waste recycling efforts
(line 1)
(line 2)
(line 3)
(line 4)
(line 5 )
(line 6)
(line 7) - ..
[(line 6) x (line4)) + 2,000 poundskon = (line 7)
1997 Projected solid waste amount in tons that can be received at municipal solid waste landfill and recycling goal (25%) met (line 7) - (line 5 ) = (line 8)
(line 8)
Amount of recycling goal that can be met by the diversion of yard trash, land-clearing debris, and construction and demolition debris from the municipal solid waste stream -Must be documented (line 9) (line 5) x 0.4 = (line 9)
Appendix E County
Statistics
On the following pages, statistical information on each of South Carolina’s 46 counties is provided. This
information includes population projections, county land use specifics, and solid waste management data
provided by the counties. Note: County Land Use percentages may not total
100 percent because of overlapping land uses.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 20,800 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites + CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites - 10,400 tons NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annuallv: + Recycled Annually: *
m ( b a s e d on available information): 31,200 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Curbside, Greenbox Commercial tipping fee: $20 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 1 year
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area
508.22 (square miles)
0
Farmland 26.9%
0
Forest 69.2%
0
Water less than 1%
0
Public Land 17.3%
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: County Collection method: Drop-off sites Wastes recycled: Newspaper, cardboard, glass, plastics,
and aluminum
* No information provided by county t No permitted sites
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 163,671 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites - 164,000 tons CWP (cellulosickonstruction waste permit) sites - 0 tons NWP (inert waste permit) sites * AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites - 2,677.5 tons
Combusted Annually: + Recycled Annually: *
m ( b a s e d on available information): 330,348.5 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox Commercial tipping fee: $15 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 8 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: County Collection method: Drop-off sites Wastes recycled: Newspaper, glass, plastics, aluminum, white goods, batteries, and scrap metal
* No information provided by county + No permitted sites
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
1,096.31
Farmland 19.5%
0
0
Forest 67.1%
0
Water less than 1%
0
Public Land 12.6%
APPENDIX E 109
SOLID WASTE MANA Landfilled Annually:
IENT
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 8,000 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites + CWP (cellulosickonstruction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annuallv: + Recvcled Annually: *
Total (based on available information): 8,000 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: * Commercial tipping fee: * Cumulative estimated remaining life: 20 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: Municipality Collection method: Curbside Wastes recycled: Aluminum, glass, and newspaper
* No information provided by county + N o permitted sites
ALLENDALE COUNTY
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
13,100 +12%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
413.44 0
Farmland 44.9%
0
Forest 60%
0
Water less than 1%
Public Land 3.1%
0
110 APPENDIX E
ANDERSON COUNTY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 87,360 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites 21,000 tons CWP (cellulosickonstruction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recycled Annually *
Total (based on available information): 108,360 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox, Curbside Commercial tipping fee: $4 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 13 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: County Collection method: Drop-off sites Wastes recycled: Newspaper, cardboard, glass, plastics,
aluminum, scrap metal, waste oil, and used tires
* No information provided by county + N o permitted sites
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
176.000 +21%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area
756.16 (square miles)
0
Farmland 34.1%
0
Forest 42.2%
0
Water 5.3%
0
Public Land 11.5%
14po 16,900
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 1,200 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites - 300 tons CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annuallv: + Recycled Annually *
Total (based on available information): 1,500 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method Curbside, Greenbox Commercial tipping fee: None Cumulative estimated remaining life: 10 years
BAMBERG COUNTY
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED~ % CHANGE
16,500 -2%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area
395.38 (square miles)
0
Farmland 33.3%
0
Forest 56.7%
0
Water 0%
0
Public Land 2%
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: * Collection method: * Wastes recycled: *
* No information provided by county +No permitted sites
112 APPENDIX E
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annuallv:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 12,584 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites + CWP (cellulosickonstruction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recycled Annually: *
Total (based on available information): 12,584 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Curbside, Greenhox Commercial tipping fee: $10 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 2 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: * Collection method: * Wastes recycled: *
* No information provided by county + No permitted sites
BARNWELL COUNTY
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
26,200 +29%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area
557.80 (square miles)
e
Farmland 24.1%
e
Forest 64.5%
e
Water less than 1%
e
Public Land 36.2%
BEAUFORT COUNTY
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED)
182.100
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annuallv:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites + IWP (industrial waste permit) sites + CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites - 10,250 tons NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annuallv: + Recvcled Annually: *
M ( b a s e d on available information): 10,250 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method * Commercial tipping fee: + Cumulative estimated remainin3 life: +
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: County, Private Collection method: * Wastes recycled: Newspaper, glass, plastics, aluminum, scrap metal,
and yard waste
* No information provided by county + N o permitted sites
% CHANGE +109%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area
691.14 (square miles)
0
Farmland 14.6%
e
Forest 38%
I Water 19.5%
Public Land 8.1%
774 APPENDIX E
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 122,493 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites - 342,650 tons CWP (cellulosickonstruction waste permit) sites * NWP (inert waste permit) site + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recvcled Annually: 370 tons
Total (based on available information): 465,513 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox, Curbside Commercial tipping fee: $3 1 S O per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 4 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: Municipality, County, State Collection method: Drop-off sites Wastes recycled White goods, batteries, waste oil,
used tires, yard waste, concretehrick, plastic, glass, cardboard, aluminum, and newspaper
* No information provided by county + No permitted sites
BERKELEY COUNTY
POPULATION 20 10 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
2 5 9,7 0 0 +loo%
~ COUNTY LAND USE
~ LandArea (square miles)
1,230.12
Farmland 10%
0
0
Forest 77.8%
0
Water 11%
0
Public Land 44%
APPENDIX E 115
1990 12,800
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 10,556 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites - 2,950 tons CWP (cellulosickonstruction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recvcled Annually: *
Total (based on available information): 13,506 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox Commercial tipping fee: None Cumulative estimated remaining life: 11 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: * Collection method: * Wastes recycled: *
* No information provided by county t No permitted sites
CALHOUN COUNTY
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECITD~
14,000 % CHANGE
+9%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area
392.17 (square miles)
Farmland 38.1%
Forest 54.8%
Water 3%
Public Land 4.6%
CHARLESTON
1990 295,800
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 164,027 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites - 7,680 tons CWP (cellulosickonstruction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites - 0 tons SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: 225,000 tons Recycled Annuallv: *
Total (based on available information): 396,707 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Curbside and Convenience Stations Commercial tipping fee: $20 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 20 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: County Collection method: Curbside and drop-off sites Wastes recycled: Newspaper, cardboard, glass, plastics,
aluminum, white goods, batteries, scrap metal, waste oil, used tires, yard waste, and telephone books
* No information provided by county + N o permitted sites
COUNTY
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
332,700 +12%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area
1,045.84 a
Farmland 7%
a
(square miles)
Forest 48%
a
Water 11.5%
a
Public Land 22.6%
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 150,000 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites + CWP (cellulosickonstruction waste permit) sites * NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recycled Annually: *
T a (based on available information): 150,000 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Curbside Commercial tipping fee: $5 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 4 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: County Collection method: Drop-off sites Wastes recycled: Newspaper, cardboard, glass, plastics,
aluminum, white goods, batteries, waste oil, magazines, and computer & office paper
* No information provided by county t No permitted sites
CHEROKEE COUNTY
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
53,300 +20%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
396.83 0
Farmland 27.8%
0
Forest 59.2%
0
Water less than 1%
Public Land 3.6%
0
118 APPENDIXE
CHESTER COUNTY
POPULATION 1990 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE 32,200 29,400 -9%
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 52,000 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites - 15,000 tons CWP (cellulosic/constmction waste permit) site - 1,300 tons NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recycled Annually: *
Total (based on available information): 68,300 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Curbside, Greenbox Commercial tipping fee: $3 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 6 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: * Collection method: * Wastes recycled: *
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
585.43 0
Farmland 25.8%
0
Forest 78.3%
0
Water 1% 0
Public Land 5.4%
* No information provided by county + No permitted sites
APPENDIX E 11 9
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
POPULATION 1990 201 0 ( P R O J E C ~ D ) % CHANCE 38,600 40,200 +4%
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 45,500 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites + CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recycled Annuallv: *
Total (based on available information): 45,500 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Curbside Commercial tipping fee: $1 5 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 6.5 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: * Collection method: * Wastes recycled *
I COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area
806.30 (square miles)
0
Farmland 21.3%
0
Forest 66.1%
0
Water less than 1%
0
Public Land 20.8%
* No information provided by county t No permitted sites
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) site - 17,418 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites + CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites - 3,568 tons NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recvcled Annually: *
Total (based on available information): 20,986 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Curbside, Greenbox Commercial tipping fee: None Cumulative estimated remaining life: 3 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: * Collection method: * Wastes recycled: *
* No information provided by county t No permitted sites
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area
696.61 (square miles)
l 0
Farmland 35.5%
0
Forest 53.2%
0
Water 15.7%
0
Public Land 17.4%
APPENDIXE 121
1990 34,500
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites + IWP (industrial waste permit) sites + CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Landfilled Annually:
Combusted Annually: + Recvcled Annually: *
Total (based on available information): *
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: * Commercial tipping fee: + Cumulative estimated remaining life: +
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: * Collection method: * Wastes recycled: *
* No information provided by county t No permitted sites
COLLETON COUNTY
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
44.400 +29% . ~~
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles) 1,067.7 1
e
Farmland 19.8%
e
Forest 67.7%
e
Water less than 1%
e
Public Land 2.5%
122 APPENDIX E
DARLINGTON COUNTY
POPULATION 1990 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE 6 1,900 63,500 +3%
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annuallv:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 69,676 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites - 75,000 tons CWP (cellnlosidconstruction waste permit) sites - 273 tons NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recvcled Annually: *
Total (based on available information): 144,949 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox, Curbside Commercial tipping fee: $16 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 9 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: County, State, Private Collection method: Drop-off sites Wastes recycled: Newspaper, glass, plastics, aluminum, batteries,
scrap metal, and waste oil
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area
566.07 (square miles)
0
Farmland 43.2%
0
Forest 49.8%
0
Water less than 1%
0
Public Land 3.5%
* No information provided by county +No permitted sites
APPENDIX E 123
DILLON COUNTY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annuallv:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 39,280 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites + CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recycled Annually: *
Total (based on available information): 39,280 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox Commercial tipping fee: $13.50 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 5 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: Municipality Collection method * Wastes recycled: Glass, plastics, and aluminum
* No information provided by county t No permitted sites
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
37,400 +28%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
406.60 0
Farmland 43.1%
0
Forest 55.5%
0
Water less than 1%
0
Public Land 2.6%
124 APPENDIX E
DORCHESTER COUNTY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 117,000 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites - 7,500 tons CWP (cellulosickonstruction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites - 120,000 tons SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annuallv: + Recvcled Annually: *
Total (based on available information): 244,500 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox Commercial tipping fee: $25 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 25 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: * Collection method: * Wastes recycled Newspaper, plastics, and aluminum
* No information provided by county + N o permitted sites
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
186.600 +123%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area
575.12 e
Farmland 18.3%
e
(square miles)
Forest 72.8%
a
Water less than 1%
e
Public Land 2.3%
APPENDIX E 125
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annuallv:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 29,202 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites + CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annuallv: + Recvcled Annually: No Recycling
Total (based on available information): 29,202 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox, Curbside Commercial tipping fee: $8 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 20 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: No Recycling Collection method: No Recycling Wastes recycled: No Recycling
* No information provided by county t No permitted sites
EDGEFIELD COUNTY
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
24,600 +34%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
492.69
Farmland 23.1%
Forest 75.4%
Water less than 1%
Public Land 11.4%
126 APPENDIX E
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites + IWP (industrial waste permit) sites + CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Landfilled Annually:
Combusted Annually: + Recvcled Annually: *
Total (based on available information): *
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: * Commercial tipping fee: + Cumulative estimated remaining life: +
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: * Collection method: * Wastes recycled: *
* No information provided by county +No permitted sites
FAIRFIEL D COUNTY
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
24,200 +9%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area
709.98 (square miles)
e
Farmland 13.1%
e
Forest 87.5%
e
Water 3.6%
e
Public Land 4.3%
APPENDIX E 127
FLORENCE COUNTY
POPULATION 1990 2010 (PROJECTED> % CHANCE 114,600 127,000 +11%
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 182,500 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites - 1,100 tons CWP (cellulosickonstruction waste permit) sites - 4,500 tons NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recvcled Annually: *
Total (based on available information): 188,100 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: * Commercial tipping fee: $16 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 25 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: County, Municipality Collection method: Drop-off sites Wastes recycled: *
* No information provided by county +No permitted sites
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
804.83 e
Farmland 40.7%
e
Forest 53.3%
e
Water less than 1%
Public Land 3%
e
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 74,146 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites - 32,000 tons CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites - 468 tons NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annuallv: + Recycled Annually: *
Total (based on available information): 106,614 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox Commercial tipping fee: $12.50 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 2.5 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: County Collection method: Drop-off sites Wastes recycled: Newspaper, glass, plastics, aluminum, white goods, batteries, scrap metal, waste oil,
yard waste, and computer & office paper
* No information provided by county + N o permitted sites
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area
875.77 (square miles)
0
Farmland 7.2%
0
Forest 13.2%
0
Water 6.6%
0
Public Land 7.3%
GREENVILLE COUNTY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 322,100 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites - 500 tons CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites * NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recvcled Annually: 2,100 tons
Total (based on available information): 324,700 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Curbside, Convenience Stations Commercial tipping fee: $22 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 23 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: Municipality Collection method: Drop-off sites, Curbside Wastes recycled: Newspaper, glass, plastics, aluminum,
white goods, and scrap metal
*No information provided by county +No permitted sites
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED)
358.200 % CHANGE
+12%
I I
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
797.87
Farmland 14.6%
0
Forest 55.6%
Water less than 1 %
0
Public Land 5.4%
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 87,600 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites - 2,000 tons CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annuallv: + Recvcled Annually: *
Total (based on available information): 89,600 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method Greenbox, Curbside Commercial tipping fee: $14 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 2 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: County Collection method: Drop-off sites, Curbside Wastes recycled: Newspaper, cardboard, glass, plastics.
and magazines
*No information provided by county + No permitted sites
GREENWOOD COUNTY
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
69,200 +16%
I COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area
462.68 (square miles)
0
Farmland 27.5%
0
Forest 70%
a
Water 2.7%
a
Public Land 6.4%
HAMPTON COUNTY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites + IWP (industrial waste permit) sites + CWP (cellulosickonstruction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Landfilled Annuallv:
Combusted Annually: 68,000 tons Recycled Annuallv: *
Total (based on available information): 68,000 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: * Commercial tipping fee: + Cumulative estimated remaining life: +
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: State Collection method Drop-off sites Wastes recycled: Waste oil
* No information provided by county + N o permitted sites
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
20,700 +14%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
562.50 0
Farmland 29.1%
0
Forest 72%
0
Water less than 1%
Public Land 3.5%
0
132 APPENMXE
HORRY COUNTY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 237,250 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites + CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recycled Annually: *
Total (based on available information): 237,250 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox, Curbside Commercial tipping fee: $4 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 2 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: County, Municipality Collection method: Drop-off sites Wastes recycled: Newspaper, glass, plastics, aluminum,
white goods, batteries, scrap metal, waste oil, yard waste, and computer & office paper
* No information provided by county + No permitted sites
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
296.000 +104%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
1,145.24
Farmland 24%
8
8
Forest 62%
0
Water less than 1%
8
Public Land 2.1%
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 8,000 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites + CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites - 120 tons NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: * Recycled Annually: No Recycling
T A (based on available information): 8,120 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox, Curbside Commercial tipping fee: $28 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 30 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: No Recycling Collection method No Recycling Wastes recycled: No Recycling
* No information provided by county + N o permitted sites
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area
671.89 (square miles)
0
Farmland 24.4%
0
Forest 72%
0
Water 2.6%
0
Public Land 5.9%
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 27,867 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites - 15,875 tons CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recycled Annually: *
Total (based on available information): 43,742 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method Greenbox, Curbside Commercial tipping fee: $20 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 30 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: Municipality Collection method: Drop-off sites Wastes recycled: Newspaper, glass, plastics, and aluminum
* No information provided by county + No permitted sites
KERSHAW COUNTY
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED] % CHANGE
56,400 +29%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area
739.27 (square miles)
0
Farmland 14.2%
0
Forest 14.1%
0
Water 2.2%
0
Public Land 2.3%
135 APPENDIX E
LANCASTER COUNTY
POPULATION 1990 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE 54,600 61,800 +13%
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 38,343 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites + CWP (cellulosickonstruction waste permit) sites - 4,800 tons NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recycled Annuallv: *
Total (based on available information): 43,143 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox, Curbside Commercial tipping fee: $13 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 2 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: County Collection method: Drop-off sites Wastes recycled: Newspaper, cardboard, glass, plastics, aluminum,
white goods, used tires, and yard waste
* No information provided by county +No permitted sites
136 APPENDIX E
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area
558.05 (square miles)
0
Farmland 16.4%
a
Forest 73.4%
Water 1% 0
Public Land 2.3%
1990 58,200
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 201,720 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites - 600 tons CWP (cellulosickonstruction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recycled Annually: *
Total (based on available information): 202,320 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox, Curbside Commercial tipping fee: $2 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 1.5 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: County, Private Collection method: Drop-off sites Wastes recycled: Newspaper, glass, plastics, aluminum,
white goods, batteries, scrap metal, waste oil, used tires, yard waste, magazines, and computer & office paper
* No information provided by county +No permitted sites
LAURENS COUNTY
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
60.900 +5%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
721.68
Farmland 27.3%
0
Forest 67.4%
Water 1.3%
Public Land 6.9%
137 APPENDIX E
LEE COUNTY
18,400 b~
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 31,025 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites t CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites t NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually + Recycled Annually: *
Total (based on available information): 3 1,02, ions
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method Greenbox, Curbside Commercial tipping fee: None Cumulative estimated remaining life: <1 year
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: Municipality Collection method: Drop-off site Wastes recycled: Newspaper, glass, plastics, aluminum &
steel cans, and waste oil
* No information provided by county t No permitted sites
POPULATION 2010 ~PROIECTED~ % CHANGE
18,900 +3%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area
410.95 (square miles)
0
Farmland 50.8%
0
Forest 45.5%
0
Water less than 1%
0
Public Land 3.3%
LEXINGTON COUNTY
Egl 168,400
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 200,750 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites - 36,225 tons CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites * AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recvcled Annually: *
Total (based on available information): 236,979 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Convenience Stations Commercial tipping fee: $15 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 25 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: County Collection method: Drop-off sites Wastes recycled: Newspaper, plastics, aluminum, used tires
and transmission & brake fluid
* No information provided by county t No permitted sites
POPULATION 201 0 ~PROJECTED) % CHANGE
23 1,000 +31%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
757.23 b
Farmland 18%
b
Forest 54.6%
b
Water 12.2%
b
Public Land 3%
139 APPENDIX E
MARION COUNTY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 48,470 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites + CWP (cellulosickonstmction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recycled Annually: *
Total (based on available information): 48,470 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox, Curbside Commercial tipping fee: $8.50 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 2 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: Municipality Collection method: Drop-off site Wastes recycled: Newspaper, glass, plastics, and aluminum
* No information provided by county + N o permitted sites
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
35.200 4%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
493.41 a
Farmland 27.2%
a
Forest 65.2%
a
Water less than 1%
a
Public Land 1.5%
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 82,125 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites - 20,000 tons CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites * AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recvcled Annually: No Recycling
Total (based on available information): 102,125 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox Commercial tipping fee: $15 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 5 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: No Recycling Collection method: No Recycling Wastes recycled: No Recycling
* No information provided by county t No permitted sites
MARLBORO COUNTY
POPULATION 20 10 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
33,100 +13%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
485.10 0
Farmland 36.7%
0
Forest 55.5%
0
Water less than 1%
0
Public Land 2.2%
APPENDIX E 141
MCCORMICK COUNTY
POPULATION 1990 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE 8,900 7,800 -12%
SOLID WASTE MAN Landfilled Annuallv:
GEMENT
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites + IWP (industrial waskpermit) sites * CWP (cellulosickonstruction waste permit) sites - 12 tons NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recycled Annually: No Recycling
T a (based on available information): 12 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox, Curbside Commercial tipping fee: + Cumulative estimated remaining life: +
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: No Recycling Collection method: No Recycling Wastes recycled: No Recycling
* No information provided by county t No permitted sites
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area
393.31 a
Farmland 9.9%
(square miles)
a
Forest 94.2%
a
Water 12.4%
a
Public Land 47.7%
142 APPENDIX E
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 41,080 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites + CWP (cellulosickonstruction waste permit) sites * NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recvcled Annually: No Recycling
Total (based on available information): 41,080 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox Commercial tipping fee: None Cumulative estimated remaining life: 1.5 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: No Recycling Collection method No Recycling Wastes recycled: No Recycling
NEWBERRY COUNTY
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
36,300 +9%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
647.62 b
Farmland 26.8%
b
Forest 73.8%
b
Water 2.2%
Public Land 15.6%
b
* No information provided by county +No permitted sites
APPEN 143
OCONEE COUNTY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 93,000 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites - 2,978 tons CWP (cellulosickonstruction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recycled Annually: No Recycling
Total (based on available information): 95,978 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox, Curbside Commercial tipping fee: $4.50 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 7 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: No Recycling Collection method: No Recycling Wastes recycled: No Recycling
* N o information provided by county t No permitted sites
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
72,300 +25%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
680.63 e
Farmland 16.4%
e
Forest 69.3%
0
Water 8.1%
e
Public Land 26.9%
ORANGEBURG COUNTY
POPULATION 1990 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE 85,000 96,700 +14%
SOLID WASTE MANA Landfilled Annuallv:
IENT
- DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 79,091 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites - 10,000 tons CWP (cellulosickonstruction waste permit) sites * NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annuallv: + Recycled Annuallv: *
Total (based on available information): 89,091 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox, Curbside Commercial tipping fee: $8.50 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 3 years
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
1,125.76 a
Farmland 41.7%
0
Forest 51.7%
0
Water 1.3%
0
Public Land 4.4%
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: Municipalities Collection method Drop-off sites, curbside Wastes recycled: *
* No information provided by county + N o permitted sites
PICKENS COUNTY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annuallv:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 104,000 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites + CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recycled Annually: *
Total (based on available information): 104,000 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Curbside, Greenbox Commercial tipping fee: $3 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 5 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: * Collection method: * Wastes recycled: *
* No information provided by county + No permitted sites
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
109,500 +16%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
505.73 0
Farmland 14.8%
0
Forest 68.3%
0
Water 1.4%
0
Public Land 7.8%
RICHLAND COUNTY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 333,442 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites - 235,000 tons CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites * AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recycled Annuallv: *
Total (based on available information): 568,442 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Curbside Commercial tipping fee: $16.50 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 3 years
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
334,500 +17%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area
771.38 (square miles)
0
Farmland 12.7%
0
Forest 65.7%
0
Water 1.3%
0
Public Land 19.3%
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: Municipality Collection method: Drop-off sites, Curbside Wastes recycled: Newspaper, glass, plastics, and aluminum
* No information provided by county + No permitted sites
APPENDIX E 147
SALUDA COUNTY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites + IWP (industrial waste permit) sites + CWP (cellulosickonstruction waste permit) sites * NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Landfilled Annually:
Combusted Annnallv: + Recycled Annuallv: No Recycling
Total (based on available information): *
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox, Curbside Commercial tipping fee: + Cumulative estimated remaining life: +
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: No Recycling Collection method: No Recycling Wastes recycled: No Recycling
* No information provided by county t No permitted sites
POPULATION 2010 ~PROJECT~D) % CHANGE
18.800 +15%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
461.57 0
Farmland 39.7%
0
Forest 59.1%
0
Water 1.3%
0
Public Land 3.2%
SPA RTANB URG COUNTY
POPULATION 1990 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE 227,100 237,100 +4%
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 1,003,440 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites - 18,800 tons CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites * NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites *
Combusted Annually: + Recycled Annually: *
(based on available information): 1,022,240 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox, Curbside Commercial tipping fee: $5 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 69 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: Municipality, County Collection method: Drop-off sites Wastes recycled: Newspaper, glass, aluminum,
white goods, and batteries
* No information provided by countj t No permitted sites
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
818.39 0
Farmland 22.1%
0
Forest 48.5%
0
Water less than 1%
0
Public Land 4.4%
A P ~ ~ N D I X E 149
SUMTER COUNTY
POPULATION 1990 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE 102,900 125,000 +21%
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 54,010 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites + CWP (cellulosickonstruction waste permit) sites - 52,729 tons NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually + Recycled Annually *
Total (based on available information): 106,739 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox Commercial tipping fee: $20 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 2 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: County Collection method: Drop-off sites Wastes recycled: *
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area
682.46 (square miles)
0
Farmland 35.8%
0
Forest 54.5%
0
Water 2.7%
0
Public Land 22.6%
* No information provided by county + N o permitted sites
UNION COUNTY
1990 30,400
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annually:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 91,250 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites + CWP (cellulosidconstruction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: + Recycled Annuallv: No Recycling
(based on available information): 91,250 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method Greenbox Commercial tipping fee: $12 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 10 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: No Recycling Collection method No Recycling Wastes recycled: No Recycling
* No information provided by county + N o permitted sites
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED~ % CHANGE
30,600 +1%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Ares
516.42 (square miles)
0
Farmland 17.3%
0
Forest 77.6%
0
Water less than 1%
e
Public Land 19.5%
APPENDIX E 151
WILLIAMSBURG
1990 36,900
COUNTY
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED) % CHANGE
44,400 +20%
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annuallv:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 24,700 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites * CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites + NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annuallv: + Recvcled Annually: *
Total (based on available information): 24,700 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox, Curbside Commercial tipping fee: $2.50 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 20 years
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: Municipality Collection method: Drop-off site Wastes recycled: Newspaper, glass, and plastics
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
934.14 0
Farmland 33.6%
0
Forest 65.1%
0
Water 0%
0
Public Land 1.3%
* No information provided by county t No permitted sites
152 APPENDIX E
YORK COUNTY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfilled Annuallv:
DWP (domestic waste permit) sites - 246,375 tons IWP (industrial waste permit) sites - 18,000 tons CWP (cellulosic/construction waste permit) sites * NWP (inert waste permit) sites + AMP (ash monofill permit) sites + SMP (sludge monofill permit) sites +
Combusted Annually: t Recycled Annually: *
(based on available information): 264,375 tons
EXISTING DWP LANDFILL DATA Collection method: Greenbox, Convenience stations,
Commercial tipping fee: $8.50 per ton Cumulative estimated remaining life: 2 years
Curbside
RECYCLING PROGRAM DATA Sponsor: Municipality, County Collection method Drop-off sites Wastes recycled: Newspaper, cardboard, glass, plastics,
aluminum, batteries, scrap metal, and waste oil
POPULATION 2010 (PROJECTED~
173,800 % CHANGE
+32%
COUNTY LAND USE
Land Area (square miles)
695.78 0
Farmland 29.4%
0
Forest 59.6%
0
Water 1.6%
0
Public Land 4.6%
* No information provided by county +No permitted sites
APPENDIX E 153
Appendix F List of
Tables
TABLE 1 FEDERAL PROGRAMS AFFECTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Pc.14
. ~~ TABLE 2 SOUTH CAROLINA STATUTES, REGULATIONS, & EXECUTIVE ORDERS
AFFECTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PG. 16 -
TABLE 3 SOUTH CAROLINA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS
AS SPECIFIED BY THE SOLID WASTE POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT
TABLE 4 1990 POPULATION, 2010 POPULATION PROJECTIONS, &
PERCENTAGE CHANGE
TABLE 5 SOUTH CAROLINA METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS
TABLE 6 SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT TOTALS (BY INDUSTRY)
TABLE I SOUTH CAROLINA LAND USE BY COUNTY - TOTAL LAND AREA
TABLE 8 SOUTH CAROLINA LAND USE BY COUNTY - FARMLAND
TABLE 9 SOUTH CAROLINA LAND USE BY COUNTY - FOREST
TABLE 10 SOUTH CAROLINA LAND USE BY COUNTY - WATER
TABLE 11 SOUTH CAROLINA LAND USE BY COUNTY - PUBLIC LAND
PG. 18
PG. 27
PG. 28
PG. 29
PG. 30
PG. 31
PG. 32
PG. 33
PG.34 -
-
-
