Tom Arrandale wrote in Governing Magazine in late 1992 that communities across the U. S. are embracing the concept of recylcing with a "near-religious fervor." What he meant is that Americans are recycling more than ever before from their trash. Yet, they are also adding garbage at an exponential rate to our waste stream. Thus, there is a contradiction. Many of us are embracing recycling as a way of environmental protection, but at the same time we are contributing more to the waste stream than ever before. What is lacking is an overall strategy for dealing with solid waste which we can agree upon.

In the following pages we will overview the elements of a comprehensive solid waste strategy, or put another way, we'll identify the parts to the solid waste puzzle. One of those parts is, and will be without a doubt, recycling. Thus, we will offer some advice on what types of questions citizens and public officials need to consider as they initiate or alter recycling programs.

Let us state up front, however, what we will reiterate below. Recycling is but one strategy to deal with solid waste. Unfortunately, many feel it is the preferred method and therefore may be pushed too far, or people deluded into thinking that as they recycle they are solving the solid waste problem. Marcia Berss phrased it nicely in a 1991 Forbes article when she said "to question the merits of recycling is to invite the wrath of friends and neighbors. ... 'It is like trying to shoot Snow White.'"

To understand the solid waste puzzle, one needs to be objective and be willing to question assumptions and assertions on all sides of the issue. Only in this fashion will we be able to meaningfully confront this complex problem.

As we add more to the American solid waste stream, we are creating what many refer to as a solid waste crisis. This crisis affects government in four ways: landfill space, waste disposal costs, stricter solid waste regulations, and adverse environmental impacts from solid waste disposal practices.

Landfills. The experts and media tell us that many existing landfills will close in the near future. The EPA says that nationally nearly 70 percent will close by the year 2000. In some areas of the country, and South Carolina, space exists for new landfills. In others, space is a problem. But, even when space exists, public opposition often makes siting a landfill extremely difficult. The NIMBY (not in my back yard) syndrome is alive and well. Plus, stricter environmental safeguards limit the development of new landfill sites. Simply put, we know more today than we did years ago about the dangers of landfills. But, we also know more about how to make them safer. Accordingly, government regulations have greatly increased the time and cost of siting a new landfill as the national government has tried to assure minimum standards across the nation. (New or expanded landfills today are often called Subtitle D landfills referring to stringent EPA regulations issued under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976.)

Disposal costs. The cost of disposing of trash is growing, in large part due to landfill costs. These costs, usually known as tipping fees, are levied on those who deposit trash in a landfill, although not every depositor is charged. Counties, who operate most landfills in South Carolina, often do not charge their cities this fee since they are both serving the same public and this public pays taxes to both. As the costs of opening and operating a landfill have risen, however, some counties are passing these costs to their member governments as well. And, the cost per ton is going up. Tonnage costs of between $10 and $20 are commonly going up to over $25 per ton and even higher. These translate into fees or taxes that the public pays either directly or indirectly, as when businesses increase their prices to consumers when their overhead increases due to waste disposal costs.

Stricter regulations. In the past landfills accepted all kinds of materials that can pollute both soil and water. These included such things as paints, motor oil, household hazardous wastes, batteries, tires, pesticide containers, and even bulky household appliances (referred to as white goods). Some estimate, for example, that the average household has 10 cans of partially used paint stored at any one time. Thus, we all have products that can be potential threats in our landfills. Recent years have seen the EPA issue stricter regulations concerning what can be disposed of in landfills. And, states have followed with at times stricter rules. Most of the items listed above cannot now, or in the future, be disposed of in a landfill any longer. Thus, alternative mechanisms have to be established to collect and dispose of them. Plus, waste must be monitored to assure that materials are not discarded inappropriately. In addition, new landfills must be constructed with protective liners and groundwater monitoring devices to insure public safety.

Environmental impact. Regulations are, of course, a manifestation of growing public and private concern for the environment. This is probably the most compelling reason for new solid waste regulations and alternative waste management strategies. As a result, landfilling and incineration of trash may not be the most cost-effective answers to dealing with waste. This is not to say, however, that they will not remain important and necessary options for disposing of our solid waste. Rather than being an automatic choice, though, they become alternatives for disposing of waste that cannot otherwise be disposed of reasonably and cost effectively.

As a result, EPA has established some goals for solid waste management in the U. S. What it would like to see us do is reduce our waste by 25%, recycle 25%, burn 20%, and bury or landfill 30%. Thus, half of American waste under EPA goals would be either reused before discarding, or not produced in the first place through reduction at the source. Currently we are burying about 76% of our waste, burning about 10%, and recycling 14%. No one really knows what is being reduced. Hence, we have a considerable distance to travel to meet the EPA goals.

Where do we start? One place is getting to know our trash. (See sidebar on myths.) Unfortunately, limited research is available on South Carolina's waste stream resulting in DHEC using the EPA's national waste stream characterization. These figures tell us that nationally Americans generate the following percentages by weight of solid waste in landfills (see Figure 1):

DHEC estimates that South Carolinians produce about 4.5 pounds of residential solid waste a day. When all types of waste are counted, the total comes to 8 pounds per person per day. (The U. S. average is 10 pounds a day.)

Strategies for dealing with our solid waste problem include four primary puzzle pieces: source reduction, incineration or burning, landfilling or burying, and recycling or reuse. EPA calls these "integrated waste management solutions." The idea is that they should be adapted to fit any particular community's needs and constraints. Local government officials, however, are concerned that environmentalists may mistakenly push recycling as the ultimate solution to every community's garbage woes. And, that national and state political figures will not appreciate fully the importance of dealing with solid waste as an intergovernmental issue that requires national, state and local governments to work together. As in many other areas of modern American life, solid waste demonstrates the interdependency of our system of government. Looking at the puzzle pieces illustrates this.

Source Reduction. As many experts have said, the shear volume of our trash is a major part of our problem. Common sense from the public official's standpoint says that we should attack the problem at the front end--reduce the amount of trash discarded in the first place. EPA even recognized this by making reduction a high priority in its hierarchy of solid waste management strategies. So far, however, EPA and the federal government have shied away from taking meaningful steps toward source reduction. The position of the Clinton Administration is yet to be determined.

The net result is that state and local governments have had to tackle source reduction on their own. Some cities and counties have received widespread publicity when they banned certain products, such as polystyrene foam food containers. Efforts such as these do not go unchallenged, however, and it is not clear whether substantial reductions in waste occur as a result.

Local governments in some instances have altered their own operations to reduce waste production, and have even experimented with waste exchange programs that try to match potential users with materials which others discard. Laudable as these efforts are, the truth is that source reduction is more effectively handled at the state level. Bottle bills, for example, have been passed in nine states to reduce waste. Maine has barred the sale of multilayer aseptic juice boxes, and others have banned plastic six-pack carrier rings.

At present, source reduction in the U. S. is mostly public education. (Europe has been more aggressive regarding source reduction and resuse. See accompanying viewpoint by Geof Lomax.) This isn't all bad, of course, since education can contribute to changing patterns of consumption. But, at the rate we are going now this will take a long time. And, it's difficult to determine how effective reduction efforts are since there is no exact way to measure waste that is kept out of the waste stream. Thus, of the different strategies for waste management, reduction is the most difficult to evaluate, although it has the potential for being one of the most cost-effective things we could do. It's also a strategy that requires active state and national government collaboration. Local governments acting alone cannot be effective.

Incineration or burning. Some have argued that if economics dictated waste management decisions incineration would be the only option. Experts tell us that nearly three-fourths of our solid wastes will burn and incineration reduces volume by as much as 90 percent. And, power can even be produced in the process Presently in the U. S. there are 171 incinerators burning 10 percent of our trash. Minnesota burns 25% of its trash, Connecticut burns 65 percent, Massachusetts 47 percent and Hawaii 42 percent. Unfortunately burning can produce dioxin, furans and other threatening wastes. Residual ash may also be toxic. Experts say that well-operated incinerators can control these emissions and that ash can be disposed of safely. Environmental groups, however, often oppose burning out of fear that it will threaten recycling since it requires a steady supply of refuse, and thereby might divert efforts to reuse our waste.

When incineration is used to produce energy the term usually used for the process is waste-to-energy (WTE). All incinerators do not produce energy, however. South Carolina has two WTE operations: Charleston County has an agreement with Foster Wheeler, and Chambers Medical Technologies owns and operates an incinerator in Hampton County.

Landfilling waste. Many local government managers candidly say that the cost of landfilling waste is driving the search for alternative waste management strategies. Governing Magazine, in 1992, reported that between 1986 and 1991, 37 states closed more than 2,200 landfills while permits were issued for only 364 new ones. While such figures have to be used with some caution, most observers agree that the cost of landfilling waste will increase, and some areas will indeed have difficulty locating acceptable sites. Tipping fees in New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts already average more than $50 a ton, and in some places have gone as high as $120 per ton.

With stronger environmental safeguards, opening a landfill is an expensive proposition today. South Carolina, for example, requires they be lined to keep liquids from leaching outward and contaminating soil and water. Operators of landfills have to take precautions to keep rainfall from infiltrating the wastes, and in our state operators must now be licensed as well.

Some argue, perhaps in an oversimplification, that we aren't running out of landfill space, but rather our politicians aren't willing to site suitable landfills, says Forbes Magazine. Some officials point out that landfilling is still cheaper than recycling. For example, Hennepin County, Minnesota, in 1991, had a landfill charging $35 a ton for tipping and a state mandated recycling program that cost over $65 a ton. San Jose, California spent, in 1991, $160 per ton to recycle waste versus $93 a ton to bury it. Closer to home in the midlands of South Carolina, both Richland and Lexington Counties have adequate landfill space for some time to come.

But, arguments based just on economics aren't enough to justify continuing to rely upon burying our garbage as our primary method of disposal or waste management. Rather, many observers argue that it simply means that we need to factor in the higher cost of alternative strategies, such as recycling, and recognize that a sensible solid waste management program must rely on more than one strategy.

Recycling. Reuse, or recycling, has taken off in the U. S. As of 1992, five states had already surpassed EPA's recycling target of 25 percent of their waste. Eleven states, however, (including South Carolina) reported in the same year that they recycled 5 percent or less of their waste. Nationally, 47 states report some type of curbside recycling program under way. In 1991, 34 states had 191 materials recovery facilities (MRFs) sorting recyclables and more than 100 additional MRFs were under construction.

But, in the words of Governing Magazine, "it's still too early to proclaim government recycling efforts an unqualified success." While some argue that recycling is a cheap, clean and economically sensible alternative to landfills and burning, many others are skeptical for a variety of reasons. Costs have been mentioned already. Markets are the second most often cited problem. Indeed, the market issue is cited by many as the "linchpin" for making recycling work. Recent years have seen a national recession which has stiffled progress toward developing markets for recyclables, together with a lack of government incentives to encourage private demand. Progress at the state level in South Carolina has been slow as well, illustrated by delays in activating a council required by the 1991 Solid Waste Management Act to study and recommend actions by the state and private sector to develop markets for recyclables.

In addition, some now point out that recycling may not always be an environmental plus. Paper is typically the largest component of waste in a landfill (about 40% according to the EPA), and newspapers a large part of that. Yet, deinking plants required to process newspapers produce toxic sludge. And, the idea that recycling newspapers saves trees may not be accurate. In the U. S., says Forbes, virgin newsprint is largely made from trees grown as a crop, and is processed in Canada where hydoelectric power is relied upon. "U. S. newsprint makers use higher polluting, nonrenewable energy like coal."

Yet, in spite of the complex questions involved in solid waste management, recycling has such broad intuitive appeal it likely will remain a cornerstone in attempts to grapple with trash. The result is a conunbrium--a complex problem without a simple solution. We can expect, therefore, more and more communities to organize recycling efforts, in large part due to governmental requirements, as in S. C. under the 1991 Solid Waste Management Act. As they do so, it would behoove them to remember that recycling is but one puzzle piece in this jigsaw we call trash.

The demand for recycling continues to grow. How does one go about setting up a program? The National Association of Towns and Townships (with a little help from the author) has provided us with a sensible outline of options and questions we can use to proceed. We can group them into five main topics: identifying recyclables, sponsorship, collection techniques, processing and staffing, and penalties and incentives related to recycling. Before proceeding, however, a note of caution. To be effective recycling needs a high rate of participation. But participation rates can be deceiving. A better measure of effectiveness may be the amount of waste diverted from the waste stream and landfilled. Our goal is 25 percent.

Identifying Recyclables. The market place dictates what can be recycled. Currently the following items are being recycled in many communities in S. C.: newspapers, magazines, plastic milk and soft drink containers, aluminum and tin cans, and glass. (Oil, lead-acid batteries, tires and white goods are banned from landfills by DHEC and in many cases recycled also.) Thus a community must decide what items it will collect for recycling.

Yard trash and land-clearing debris was formerly disposed of in landfills along with household trash. State regulations now require that they be disposed of separately, and composting is encouraged. Hence, a decision on what strategy to use regarding this type of trash is necessary also. Such debris can still be landfilled, for example, just not mixed with household trash and placed in the same landfill.

Sponsorship. Who will take the lead in community recycling? There are a number of options, including the government (city or county), a private trash hauler, an individual in the community, or a non-profit organization. Today we increasingly see government moving into this arena. But, non-profits, like Keep America Beautiful and others, continue to be important actors. Thus, we will assume for purposes of our discussion that a city or county is taking the lead. But, one should not ignore the efforts of various others in the community. Specific types of wastes, for example, may be better organized by a non-profit, or even members of the business community, working in concert with the government. An example would be disposal of Christmas trees after that holiday has passed.

Collection techniques. Informed opinion tells us that to be effective collection must be (l) convenient for the citizen, and (2) efficient for the collector and handler. Thus, recycling is more apt to be effective if it mirrors whatever method of trash collection is already in use. Why? Because this is most likely to be the simplest method. Simplicity usually works best!

The major alternatives for collection of recyclables are drop-off programs, curbside programs, buy-back (redemption) operations, and commercial pick-up. We'll discuss each of these in turn.

· Drop-off programs. Drop-off programs are frequently found in rural areas where citizens must haul their own trash to a drop-off center. They tend to be more successful when convenient locations have been used, the distance people have to travel to them is reasonable, and the process of dropping off recyclables is as simple as possible. (This includes such considerations as clear signs for the public, attractive locations, clean sites, well-lit areas, and so forth.)

Drop-off programs often encounter problems with people littering and depositing materials not intended for collection if they are in isolated areas and are not manned . Thus, care must be taken if this option is used.

One notable example of drop-off recycling in a large city which appears to be successful is Tampa, Florida (pop. 278,000) according to Resource Recycling magazine (January 1993). Sites used include supermarket stores' parking lots, parks, schools, a museum and a Pepsi bottling plant. Tampa's experience shows that drop-off can work in an urban setting but it takes a great deal of attention to detail to have an effective and efficient system.

· Curbside collection. Picking up recyclables at curbside is usually preferable if regular household trash is picked up there as well. Programs differ, however, in terms of the sorting required, the scheduling and frequency of pick-ups.

Opinions differ on the effect that separation requirements have on compliance with recycling at curbside. Some argue co-mingling items will encourage recycling by minimizing effort and confusion. Co-mingling can be done by using open containers which hold papers on the bottom, then bottles and cans on top. The City of Columbia uses this approach. Open top containers, however, will allow the contents to get wet in rainy weather and may generate citizen complaints. Clear bags have also been used which allow the collector to see if there are non-recyclables included. The problem here is what to do with the bags once they are opened. Others argue that if convenient containers are provided to the user, sorting by the citizen is simple and much more efficient for the collector. The City of Aiken has elected to use this approach.

There is also a difference of opinion about scheduling. Picking up on the same day as regular trash is collected may encourage more participation, but may be more expensive depending on the method used to contain recyclables and gather them, and staffing patterns for the collector. Separate day pick-up may be more cost-effective, but will require educating the public about the schedule

· Buy-back (redemption) operations. A unique variation of drop-off recycling is the buy-back program where those bringing certain types of recyclables get paid for their materials. Private companies have operated such efforts for aluminum, for example. The obvious drawback to this approach is that it is not feasible for all recyclables. Such programs also require more bookkeeping and equipment, such as scales, cash registers and safes, not to mention more training for the staff involved.

A unique example of a big city opting for buy-back recycling is Shreveport, Louisiana which opened two buy-back centers in August 1992. Shreveport, like some other communities,found it had no trash disposal problem--it owned it's own landfill which is financially and environmentally sound and has a long expected lifespan. In addition, the demographic make-up of the city suggested participation in recycling would be low. And, some studies suggested that nearly as much waste could be diverted by drop-off as by voluntary curbside recycling.

Shreveport's two drop-off centers not only buy-back but also accept items not purchased thereby making the city's program one of the most comprehensive recycling programs in the U. S. It is also unique in that patrons are allowed to donate their receipts to charities. A private company operates the program. (See Resource Recycling, February 1993).

· Commercial pick-up. All communities which collect trash may not collect both residential and commercial garbage. Many allow businesses to contract for their own collection service since they may require more frequent collection, and may use different types of equipment than residential collection would use. A decision, then, when recycling is whether commercial establishments would be included as well as residential areas.

Businesses generate a great deal of trash. Therefore, diverting their recyclables from the waste stream can cut down significantly on what is buried or burned. Moreover, many businesses can provide a steady, reliable flow of certain types of recyclables. The question for the city or county, however, is whether they can collect businesses trash and recyclables, or just recyclables.

· Voluntary versus mandatory collection. As a society, Americans tend to prefer free choice. But, some choices are difficult to allow freedom of choice in. Recycling can be controversial when the issue of voluntary versus mandatory participation comes up. Most programs today are voluntary, which means that efforts have to be made to encourage people to participate. Effective public education therefore becomes absolutely critical. Along with education, we also have to consider the incentives to recycle, its ease, and its cost.

Programs that allow differential in costs for trash collection so that people who recycle can see a reduction in their garbage bills will usually be successful. These are hard to build in, however, and depend upon the method of financing used for trash collection, and the technique used for collection.

Mandatory programs usually mean requiring the separation of trash by the citizen. Thereby the collector can refuse to take recyclables which are mixed with nonrecyclables. If mandatory, the collection of recyclables can be handled the same way as other trash, or different techniques could be used--although we are cautioned to try to use the same approach for simplicity.

If mandatory recycling is selected, the community will need to pass an ordinance requiring it and which also covers a number of other points, such as: (l) why trash separation is mandatory; (2) to whom mandatory separation and recycling applies (residential versus business customers); (3) which items must be separated and how they will be collected; (4) what processing by the citizen is required, such as cleaning or bundling; (5) the collection procedures to be used, such as curbside pick-up, schedules, etc.; and (6) penalties for noncompliance. Enforcement likely will be a problem, and may become controversial.

Processing and Operating. The community must decide if it will process recyclables for market or rely upon someone else for this. Some recyclables must be reduced in volume by crushing them, shredding or flattening, or cleansed by removing unusable parts or contaminants. Processing often is more cost-effective, and efficient if it is done on a regional basis, especially when member cities and/or counties are small. Or, if another larger governmental entity is already doing this, it may make more sense for smaller governments to enter cooperative agreements with the larger entity.

Processing usually requires equipment which may be expensive, thereby arguing again for cooperating with others. The same is true, of course, for operating a recycling program. Some communities may not have the necessary equipment or staff required. This requires that they consider adding equipment and staff as necessary, contracting with another governmental entity, contracting with a private company, or entering into a multi-jurisdictional arrangement with other entities in which resources are pooled.

Recycling will likely require adding or reassigning staff to deal with a variety of issues, such as education efforts for the public and businesses, working with contractors and other governments as necessary, keeping records on participation and trash collection to measure the success of the program, and so forth.

Penalities and Incentives. Finally, recycling will create the need for penalities and incentives for those who fail to participate or abuse the system, and encourage those who support the effort. One subject often overlooked is the need for an ordinance to try to prevent scavenging. Because recyclables have value, some individuals may try to steal them before they are collected. Local ordinances can make this illegal and provide for punishment to try to discourage this, as well as cut down on littering which may occur as items are left out for collection.

Mandatory recycling, of course, will require a penalty for failure to comply. If the community is working with a private collector, penalties may also be placed in the contract dealing with failure of the contractor to live up to the terms of the contract.

Incentives should also be emphasized, however, to encourage recycling and its ongoing use. Prize drawings can be conducted for those who recycle, contests can be held to encourage participation, pamphlets and other items can be designed and distributed to promote the program and contests used to enlist involvement in developing such ideas.

Thus, designing a recycling program is not at all as easy as one might first assume. It requires planning. Options need to be studied. Alternatives considered. And, in all this simplicity and convenience must be emphasized.

Discussing solid waste management options, and recycling, in the abstract, while informative, doesn't allow us to grasp the challenges and choices confronting public officials fully. To do that it helps to examine concrete examples. Thus, we next turn to a brief look at how cities and counties in the midlands of South Carolina are dealing with solid waste and recycling.

An examination of Richland and Lexington counties, and the cities of Cayce, Columbia, Irmo and West Columbia, shows some similarities but many contrasts in how they approach solid waste and recycling. All the cities have mandatory trash collection, but only Richland County requires unincorporated area residents to pay for curbside trash pick-up by franchised haulers. (Richland is one of three counties in the state to require this.) Lexington County does not require its residents to have garbage service, rather it is voluntary. So, the county operates 12 convenience stations around the county where people can drop-off their trash, if they do not subscribe to a pick-up service or live in a city providing the service.

As of this writing, each of the cities mentioned either has a curbside recycling program or is about to implement one. Each is a voluntary program and uses an 18 gallon open bin in which residents co-mingle their recyclables and place them at the curb once a week to be picked up and sorted at the curbside. And, they each recycle at the curbside the same materials--newspapers, glass, tin cans, aluminum cans, and plastic soft drink and milk bottles. Columbia also operates three drop-off sites where it takes the same items plus mazagines. West Columbia operates one drop-off site, noting that it allows residents and businesses that do not have access to the curbside program to participate, as well as providing an outlet for those who have excess materials to recycle for which a once-a-week pick-up would not be satisfactory. Cayce and Irmo, however, do not operate any type of drop-off facility.

With the exception of Irmo, each of the cities funds its solid waste and recycling program from its property tax levy. Columbia, however, is considering switching to a user fee in order to collect from entities that are exempt from property taxes, and to be fairer in the allocation of costs of the service being provided to the user. The proposal to change to a fee in Columbia has not been without some controversy over equity issues about the ability of citizens to pay for services like garbage collection versus the fact that reliance upon the property tax results in a considerable subsidy by highly valued properties. The cities also, with the exception of Irmo, provide sanitation services using government employees. Irmo contracts with a private collector. Irmo's sanitation costs, to the extent they can be compared to the others, appears to be somewhat lower due to privitization thus far.

The counties pose major contrasts to the cities. Lexington County includes recycling opportunities at its drop-off centers, which take oil and batteries as well as the major recyclables with the exception of magazines. At this writing, the county has no plans to expand its recycling program or move to mandatory trash collection. As a result, the Lexington recycling effort only diverts about one percent of wastes from being landfilled.

Richland County, on the other hand, has no recycling program but is examining its options and plans to move forward with a program in the near future. Its options are to develop it's own program or to consolidate with the City of Columbia for solid waste mangement and operate one program countywide. Consolidating with the City of Columbia would let the City collect all waste and recyclables and rely on the County for disposal. The City has a large and effective program already, and is meeting its goal of recycling 25 percent of its waste in advance of a 1997 target set by the state.

Consolidation, however, would boost the county's garbage fee considerably, from $89 a year to around $150. And, some rural areas might not get the same level of curbside service. Thus, the choice isn't easy. Should the county act independently, it is considering building a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) to sort recyclables rather than sort them at the curbside as the cities in the midlands do. Such a facility is, of course, expensive, but does allow faster collection, and some argue might encourage more participation by allowing residents to place their recyclables in bags for pick-up.

The midlands governments also are approaching yard trash and land clearing debris in different ways. As of May 27, 1993 such debris is banned from municipal landfills in South Carolina. Thus, it either has to be buried in another type of landfill, or composted. Composting operations also cost money to run, although they are less expensive than landfilling in a permitted landfill. Lexington County, however, has entered into an unusual agreement with a private company to allow the company to buy land near its landfill and operate a bioremediation program using all the yard trash generated within the county at no cost to the county. The City of Columbia also expects to participate in this program.

Richland County, however, asserts that transportation costs make transporting its yard trash and land clearing debris to the Lexington site uneconomical versus burying in an inert landfill, and later developing a composting program. Thus, one sees again contrasting options being selected as entities confront dealing with the solid waste puzzle.

These two counties and the major cities within them illustrate how in a relatively small area one can find diverse approaches to dealing with similar problems. One also sees that public officials have many things to consider when they grapple with their solid waste problem. Thus, no one solution is best for everyone. There are a lot of pieces to the solid waste puzzle, and the final configuration of the puzzle will differ as one moves from one governmental entity to another. Dealing with solid waste and recycling are going to be with us for sometime to come though. Thus, we would all be well advised to learn more about the subject. Public support for recycling is still growing. Alternative strategies are needed to deal with the public fervor.

The Solid Waste Policy and Management Act of 1991 includes the following in its purposes concerning recycling, reuse and reduction of solid waste in South Carolina.

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.

4. To establish a leadership role for the State in recycling 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.

5. To require counties to develop and implement source separation, 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.

The Act also established two goals regarding recycling and reduction: by 1997, 25 percent of the State's solid waste should be recycled, and there should be a 30 percent reduction, by weight, in waste being landfilled or burned.

The Recycling Development Council was created within the Development Board in order to assist in developing markets for recovered materials and products with recycled content. An Initial Report was issued by the Council on February 26, 1993 and is available from the Council by calling 737-0400.

An Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling was created within DHEC to promote and assist in the development of source separation, recovery and recycling programs; to maintain a directory of recycling and resource recovery systems; and to provide assistance in matching recovered materials with markets. The Office became operational in January, 1992. Its phone number is 734-4942.

A South Carolina Solid Waste Management Plan is required by the Act annually with an assessment required in 1997 of accomplishments in meeting the goals outlined in the Act. The first plan was issued by DHEC November 27, 1992 and may be obtained from the Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling.

The Garbage Project, conceived in 1971 and officially established at the University of Arizona in 1973, applied archaeological principles to a modern problem--garbage. Over 250,000 pounds of garbage was excavated and catalogued. Among the myths uncovered were the following:

Less than one-half of one percent of the garbage excavated consisted of fast-food packaging. The Garbage Project estimates that such packaging accounts for no more than one-third of one percent of the total volume of the average landfill's contents. The expanded polystyrene foam thrown away in the U. S. each year accounts for no more than one percent of the volume of landfilled garbage. And, on average, disposable diapers make up no more than one percent by weight of a typical landfill's total solid waste content, and no more than 1.4 percent by volume.

Fast-food packaging, foam and disposable diapers have acquired high visibility because they are so noticable among casual litter, and people think the components of everyday garbage are the same as landfilled garbage. As a result these items become powerful symbols. But, if they disappeared, landfill operators would hardly notice.

The Garbage Project found that all plastics amounted to between 20 and 24 percent of all garbage, as sorted; when compacted along with everything else as it is in landfills, the volume of plastics fell to only about 16 percent. While the number of individual plastic items in trash has increased, the proportion of landfill space taken up by those items has not changed. The explanation seems to be the result of what is know as "light-weighting"--making items with less resin and thereby lighter. This makes it thinner and more crushable.

Landfills are popularly seen as places where organic matter is rapidly breaking down, either into some type of rich humus, or breaking into chemicals which leach into surrounding soil and water. The Garbage Project found that while some biodegradation does take place, the dynamics of a modern landfill are the opposite of what people think. Well designed and managed landfills are not vast composters, but mummifiers. From the newspapers in our landfills, you could relive the New Deal.

While there are shortages of landfills in some areas of the U. S., and a lot of landfills have been shut down nationwide, research does not conclude that we are running out of space. In 1988, eight percent of our landfills handled 75 percent of our trash. Trends are toward bigger landfills. Many of the landfills closed in recent years have been small. And, while congested areas of the country have difficulty finding space for landfills, in the country as a whole space is not a problem. Obstacles to siting landfills tend to be more psychological and political, and to some extent monetary.

Limited data is available on the generation of trash over extended periods of our history, but what there is does not suggest that per capita rates have steadily accelerated. This does not mean that the total volume of trash has not increased as the population has increased. Indeed, it has but it is because there are more of us. Hence, our record suggests that our solid waste problems are not the result of unrestrained excess.

The Garbage Project's findings do not suggest that we do not have a solid waste problem. Rather they suggest that our notions about the creation and disposal of garbage are riddled with misconceptions. They also suggest we may tend to go after symbolic targets rather than the more serious ones. Project results drive home a lesson relevant to many policy issues: public and political notions of our problems may not match! Garbage studies offer a useful reminder of critical self knowledge--we do not necessarily know many things that we think we know.

Source: William Rathje and Cullen Murphy, Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage, published by Harper and Collins Publishers in 1992. An article entitled "Five Major Myths..." by the same authors was published in the fall 1992 issue of the South Carolina Forum magazine published by the University of South Carolina, Institute for Public Service and Policy Research.

Tyer, Charlie B. "Recycling: Fervor in Search of a Strategy," The South Carolina Policy Forum Magazine, Vol. 4, no. 3 (Summer 1993): 21-31.