SOLID WASTE REGIONALIZATION

MONTANA’S JOURNEY

Waste & Underground Tanks Management Bureau

Solid Waste Section

HISTORY

• In The Beginning (1960s)– 514 Communities in MT = Approx. 514 dumps

– Dumps poorly located.

– Rarely covered, burned often = Air, surface water and ground water pollution.

– No State or Federal government oversight.

History

• 1960s

History• 1960s• Initial State & Federal Government Activities– 1965 MT’s first state wide solid waste laws passed.

– The SW laws pressured communities to;• Consolidate or close open dumps & operate sanitary

landfills• Cease open burning• Apply daily cover

• Result = Very limited compliance\status quo

History• 1960s• Why???– Local Governments lacked the fiscal means • To fund solid waste management .• Implement the changes required by state law.

• Solution (Initial Steps to Regionalization)– Passage of the Refuse Disposal District Law in

1969.

History1970sRefuse Disposal District Law• Made it possible for a county or several counties to

establish refuse disposal districts.• Develop waste management plans.• Implement fees for solid waste management.

• Other SW Laws• Required licensure of solid waste landfills = State

approved operations, county issued licenses.

History1970s• State Solid Waste Program took shape

• Consolidation and closure of local dumps continued.

• 1975 = 277 MSW landfills, but only 11 were licensed.

• Approx. 102 were in reasonable compliance with state operation requirements.

• 1975 State Legislature authorized a state wide solid waste study – completed in 1977.

History1970sLegislative study recommendations• Development of comprehensive state wide SW

services

• Regional strategy to include transfer stations and incinerators.

• Appropriation of state funds to counties for local and regional SW planning.

History1970s• 1977 - Passage of a comprehensive State Solid

Waste Management Act• State to provide financial and technical support for local

government in solid waste system development and management.

• Local government authorized to finance, construct, own and operate SWMS, or contract for such services.

• Authorized a state solid waste management plan

History1970sOther Key Events in the 70s• 1977 – 1983…..Goal again set to close dumps and

upgrade to sanitary landfills.

• 1978 State took over the licensure solid waste landfills – uniformed standards

History1980s – (Strengthening regionalization)• Early – Reduction of state funding for solid waste

planning, and technical assistance. • 1988 – Passage of 40 CFR Part 258• Federal regulations for the min. technical

requirements for MSW landfills.• 1989 - MT legislature required • All MSWLFs serving a pop. > 5000 to implement

ground water monitoring.• Authorized funding for an additional FTE to

enforce the new law.

History

1990s1991 - Many legislative changes• 30 Bills dealing with SW introduced - 18 passed

including:• License application and annual license renewal

fees for SWMS.• Authorization of additional FTE for SWP = 14.• Support for the state SW planning effort.• Adoption of the Subtitle D requirements.

Primary Regionalization Factors

POLICIES

REGULATIONS

Primary Regionalization FactorsPOLICIES – Long range planning to ensure adequate landfill capacity exists to meet population needs.

• State• Regionalization and consolidation.• Development of environmentally sound solid waste

facilities.• Assist local government in establishing solid waste disposal

sites.

Primary Regionalization FactorsPOLICIES (cont.)• State – Drafted comprehensive\integrated solid waste plan

(revised and updated every five years)

• Initial State plan identified • Population centers• Wastes types• Current and future capacity needs per pop. growth

estimates• Waste management hierarchy• Types of waste management options\facilities

Primary Regionalization Factors

POLICIES (cont.)

• State – Worked with local government to:• Determine need and types of solid waste facilities

• Provided technical assistance (and some funding)

• Recommend consolidation\regionalization where appropriate. (There was some arm twisting)

Primary Regionalization FactorsPOLICIES (cont.)

• Local Government – Participated in the planning process via• Legislative representation

• County government planning boards and councils

• Police powers

• Other local associations established to protect the environment

Primary Regionalization FactorsRegulations – Long range planning resulted in current regulatory structure which helped drive regionalization.

• Federal Regs. 40 CFR 256, 257, and 258• Required states to have a state solid waste plan prior to

their adoption and implementation of 40 CFR 257 and 258.

• 40 CFR 257 and 258 – Commonly referred to as Subtitle D

Primary Regionalization FactorsRegulations – Long range planning resulted in current regulatory structure which helped drive regionalzation.• Federal Regs. - Subtitle D• Uniform standards for the siting, design construction,

operation of MSW landfill.

• Ground water monitoring.

• Closure, post-closure care and corrective action financial assurance.

Primary Regionalization FactorsRegulations (cont.)

• State Regs. • Montana Integrated Waste Management Act 75-10-Part 1.

MCA

• Montana Solid Waste Management Act 75-10-Part 2, MCAARM’s – 17.50 sub-chapters 4,5 and 10-14

• Montana Solid Waste District Act 7-13-Part 2. MCA

• Montana Joint Solid Waste District Act 7 -14-Part 3. MCA

Primary Regionalization FactorsRegulations (cont.)

• State Regs. • Enforcement • Penalties for operation of Solid waste facilities

without a state license.

• Non-compliant facilities also face enforcement action – brought back into compliance.

Where Are We NowWhat/how/who we regulate

• Montana Solid Waste Management Act– 75-10-201, MCA• ARM’s – 17.50 sub-chapters 4,5 and 10-14

• Infectious Waste Management Act– 75-10-208 and 75-10-1001, MCA• ARM 17.50 Sub-chapter 15 (2013)

Where Are We Now142 licensed facilities comprised of:69 Landfills

32 Class II landfills - MSW34 Class III landfills

4 Tire Monofills3 Class IV landfills

13 Burn Sites20 Composters

4 Large Composters9 Small Composters7 Roadkill Composters

4 Soil Treatment Facilities/Landfarms24 Recycling facilities

2 Electronic Waste Collection facilities22 Recyclers

12 Transfer Stations

Where Are We Now

Where Are We Now

Where Are We Now

Where Are We Now

Where Are We NowCalendar Year 2014 Tonnage:

Class II landfills: 1,560,340Class III landfills: 31, 894Class III Tire Monofills: 13, 982Class IV landfills: 590Class III Burn Sites: 1885 tonsLarge Composters: 28, 756Small Composters: 945Roadkill Composters: 1,811Soil Treatment Facilities/Landfarms: 1,080Electronic Waste Collection facilities: 855Recyclers: 341,095

Where Are We NowCURRENT RULE UPDATES• Soil Treatment Facilities

• Full-time and One-time• Update volumes/limits• Incorporate facilities from Petro Fund• Updated guidance

• Composting Facilities• Large, small, animal mortalities/roadkill, home/community gardens

• Oilfield Wastes• Limits for NORM/TENORM• Design/monitoring standards

• Landfill Financial Assurance• Incorporating all EPA mechanisms

Where Are We Now

Interested Persons Database Project

• Updating interested parties\stakeholders lists• Electronic notification• Website updates with links

QUESTIONS???