SOLID WASTE REGIONALIZATION MONTANAS JOURNEY Waste Underground Tanks

SOLID WASTE REGIONALIZATION MONTANA’S JOURNEY Waste & Underground Tanks Management Bureau Solid Waste Section

HISTORY • In The Beginning (1960 s) – 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 • 1960 s

History • 1960 s • 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 compliancestatus quo

History • 1960 s • 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.

History 1970 s Refuse 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.

History 1970 s • 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.

History 1970 s Legislative 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.

History 1970 s • 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

History 1970 s Other Key Events in the 70 s • 1977 – 1983…. . Goal again set to close dumps and upgrade to sanitary landfills. • 1978 State took over the licensure solid waste landfills – uniformed standards

History 1980 s – (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 1990 s 1991 - 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 Factors POLICIES – 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 Factors POLICIES (cont. ) • State – Drafted comprehensiveintegrated 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 optionsfacilities

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 consolidationregionalization where appropriate. (There was some arm twisting)

Primary Regionalization Factors POLICIES (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 Factors Regulations – 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 Factors Regulations – 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 Factors Regulations (cont. ) • State Regs. • Montana Integrated Waste Management Act 75 -10 -Part 1. MCA • Montana Solid Waste Management Act 75 -10 -Part 2, MCA ARM’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 Factors Regulations (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 Now What/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 Now 142 licensed facilities comprised of: 69 Landfills 32 Class II landfills - MSW 34 Class III landfills 4 Tire Monofills 3 Class IV landfills 13 Burn Sites 20 Composters 4 Large Composters 9 Small Composters 7 Roadkill Composters 4 Soil Treatment Facilities/Landfarms 24 Recycling facilities 2 Electronic Waste Collection facilities 22 Recyclers 12 Transfer Stations

Where Are We Now

Where Are We Now

Where Are We Now

Where Are We Now

Where Are We Now Calendar Year 2014 Tonnage: Class II landfills: 1, 560, 340 Class III landfills: 31, 894 Class III Tire Monofills: 13, 982 Class IV landfills: 590 Class III Burn Sites: 1885 tons Large Composters: 28, 756 Small Composters: 945 Roadkill Composters: 1, 811 Soil Treatment Facilities/Landfarms: 1, 080 Electronic Waste Collection facilities: 855 Recyclers: 341, 095

Where Are We Now CURRENT 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 partiesstakeholders lists Electronic notification Website updates with links

QUESTIONS? ? ?