Table Of Content

1 Montana Department of Transportation Environmental Baseline Assessment Final Report April 27, 1993 Prepared by: MSE, Inc. Technical Services Division MSE, Inc. P.O. Box 4078 Butte, MT 59702 (406) 723-8213 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Montana Department of Transportation Environmental Baseline Assessment Final Report April 27, 1993 Prepared by: MSE, Inc. Technical Services Division MDT Environmental Baseline Assessment Report ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS MSE, Inc., would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those Department ofTransportation employees who assisted MSE in the development of this report. This includes both the auditors who conducted the environmental assessments and the employees who accompanied and assisted MSE during the verification audits. Without their contributions, development of this report would not have been possible: Auditors Bill Balbinot Michael MacDonald John Bickle Gary Marten Andy Blohm Alan McRae Dennis Blunt Pat Mervin Paul Bronson Clude Mitchell Dennis Cline Harold Mohn Ben Dean Tim Olson Rick Fulwiler Elden Patterson Tom Gilreath Mike Rogan Paul Green Ben Rogers Bob Harding Victor Schatz Jay Harvey John Schuler Ralph Howard Shannon Schultz Ron Joslyn Mark Snow Stan Kuntz Clifford Tennant Janet LaFountain Michael Teter Doug Lutke Bob Weber Others Tom Barnard Gene McMahon John Blocker Larry Parsons Rich Bouldin Jim Richman Paul Bronson Rick Shibley Mike Buckley Travis Smith Walt Dayton Stan Sternberg Frank Fleisner Eugene Stettler Hazen Flickinger Bill Strizich John Fowler George Swartz Gary Gilmore Roy Ventura Jason Girard Edrie Vinson Steve Herzog Jerry Wade Gary Homseth Jim Walter Bill Juve Robert Webb Dave Kelly Jim Weaver Gordon Larson Bill Wood Tony Laveck Arnold Zacharis Archie Little Dave Ziggler Don Lovely Bill Zucconi Bill McChesney April 27, 1993 u MDT II Environmental Baseline Assessment Report Montana Department of Transportation Environmental Baseline Assessment Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Technical Services Division of MSE, Inc., is pleased subjects addressed or contemporary issues to submit this Environmental Baseline Assessment Report related to environmental compliance to the Montana Department ofTransportation (MDT). As shown in Figure 1, preparation of this report • Identify institutional issues that may be root completes the first phase of MSE's three phase contract causes ofsome the conditions observed. with MDT. The data presented is based upon information collected by MDT's auditors during their It is not the purpose of this report to provide solutions or environmental assessments and information gathered by recommendations for further action, but rather, to MSE through follow-up audits. The purpose of the document findings and observations from the audits that report is to: were conducted. The baseline assessment is principally a cataloging effort. As shown in Figure 1, solutions and • Identify the hazardous materials that are used recommendations will be provided in phase two and three and the wastes that are generated from various of the contract. Under phase two, corrective action plans maintenance activities will be prepared to address the findings identified in this report. Under phase three, a Hazardous Materials and • Form a picture of the environmental compliance Waste Management Plan will be prepared which will MDT status at facilities based upon information provide detailed, day-to-day operating procedures to gathered by MDT and MSE auditors assist MDT employees in complying with environmental regulations. • Identify special environmental issues not included in the contract but related to the In July, 1992, MSE developed a two-volume MDT Contract Associated Phase Tasks Purpose MSEdevelops audittrainingmanuals Baseline MMSDETconducts audittraining Documentenvironmental baseline conducts audits MDT MSE MDT conditions at facilities Assessment verifies audits MSEprepares EnvironmentalBaseline throughoutthe State AssessmentReport «mm luiunuMMWwwmMMimiWJMi.m.1!..,i..I ..MMiumg— ^XWfflWKJ Corrective MSEdevelopscorrective action plans (CAPs) Address the findings identifiedin the Action MSEconductsCAPtraining EnvironmentalBaseline Assessment MDTandContractorimplementCAPs Report Planning MSE verifiesCAPimplementation Environmental MSEdevelops HazardousMaterials Developdetailedprocedures toensure Management ManagementPlan forMDT pmartoepreiralmsananadgewmaestnetsoafnhdaztoarmdionuismize implementation futureliabilities Figure 1. The information obtained from the audit process will assist MDT in implementing corrective actions and the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Plan. April 27, 1993 hi MDT ii Environmental Baseline Assessment Report Environmental Compliance Audit Training Manual. MSE compliance with environmental regulations can then provided three days of training to approximately 40 be understood MDT employees on how to conduct environmental compliance audits and assessments. After the training, • Identify noteworthy practices that might benefit MDT these personnel began conducting site assessments and other facilities. gathering information to complete the "MDT Abbreviated Environmental Audit Checklist" (Appendix A). MDT As a result of the assessments and audits conducted by employees have conducted 263 assessments at facilities in MDT and MSE, the Department will have a better all five districts throughout the State. Facilities assessed understanding ofthe processes that use hazardous include maintenance shops, section sites, airports, materials and generate hazardous waste and the liabilities GVW laboratories, rest areas, stockpile sites, and associated with materials and waste management. stations. In general, MSE has found MDT's initial Table 1 summarizes the hazardous materials that are used assessments to be accurate and thorough. MDT's in MDT operations as identified in this process and the auditors evaluated facility compliance with respect to the wastes that are generated. The table uses two terms in an following five environmental statutes: attempt to categorize and prioritize the materials. These terms are recyclable and liability: Recyclable refers to • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act any waste that can be potentially burned for energy (RCRA) which governs management ofsolid and recovery, stored for reuse, provided to another user, or hazardous wastes recycled in the traditional sense; Liability refers to the cost incurred by MDT for proper management and • Comprehensive Environmental Response, disposal ofwaste, or the cleanup costs and potential Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), a third-party liabilitieswhen wastes migrate offsite and federal act, and the Comprehensive impact adjacent property. As shown in the table, Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act management ofwaste paints, solvents, pesticides, and (CECRA), a state act, addressing uncontrolled used oil present the greatest quantifiable liability to releases ofhazardous substances to the MDT. environment In general, MSE has found that most MDT employees • Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide are personally motivated and interested in understanding Act (FIFRA) regarding management of and complying with environmental regulations. Several pesticides MDT employees have shown great initiative in minimizing the quantity and toxicity ofwaste that is • Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) which generated on a day-to-day basis. However, the majority provides management requirements for PCBs. of employees MSE spoke with indicated that they do not receive needed direction and training from within the While there are other environmental statutes and Department on how to properly manage hazardous regulations that may be applicable to MDT's activities, it materials and wastes. As a result, MDT is in non- was beyond the scope of this project to include them in compliance with the majority of the regulatory any substantial way in the audit process. Several specific requirements investigated at the facilities. This presents a issues are discussed briefly in this report because they are significant enforcement liability to the Department, examples ofsources ofpotential environmental liability. particularly with respect to RCRA and CERCLA. For These include management of treated timber wastes, used instance, mismanagement ofhazardous wastes under oil, stormwater runoff, land management, and right-of- RCRA can result in civil penalties up to $25,000/day, ways. and criminal penalties associated with knowing misconduct can result in fines ofup to $250,000 and In December 1992, MSE conducted verification audits of imprisonment. While these penalties certainly represent 17 facilities. The purpose of these audits was to: the worst-case situation, they illustrate the gravity with which the MDT must consider these issues. The case MDT • Verify the information provided by in the record across the nation is replete with examples ofstiff initial assessment reports enforcement actions against public agencies, responsible civil servants, and public officials. Followingis a » Assess environmental compliance in more detail summary of the findings contained in this report. using detailed audit checklists RCRA • Obtain a better understanding ofwork practices and procedures so that the reasons for non- Waste minimization, pollution prevention, source April 27, 1993 IV MDT II Environmental Baseline Assessment Report Table 1. MDT maintenance activities generate both solid and hazardous wastes. Most wastes are generated in small quantities, so the greatest liability lies with paints, solvents, pesticides, and used oils. Maintenance Hazardous Materials Potentially Activity Used Waste Generated Waste Type Recyclable Potential Liability Roadway Repair Road Oil Excess Solid Yes Low. except for road Asphalt Quantities of oil, which is medium Tack These Materials due to quantity used Rejuvenator and waste generated. Striping Yellow Paint Solvents Unused/Waste Yes High, since large White Paint Paints and quantities are used and Solvents waste is likely hazardous. Winter Roadway Salt Snow Melt or Solid No Low, unless large Maintenance Mg Chloride Runoff quantities are spilled and migrate toward surface waters. Roadside Pesticides Unused/Outdated Hazardous" No High, due to relatively Maintenance Pesticides or high toxicity. Empty Container Equipment and Oils & Grease Used Oil Solid and Yes Medium, since most Vehicles Solvents Used Filters Hazardous waste is generated in Spray Paints Spent Solvents small quantities, but is Batteries Unused Products often hazardous and Cleaners Used Batteries discharged through Vehicle Fluids Empty Containers floor drains. Facilities Paints Unused Products Solid and Yes Low, since most waste Thinners Empty Container Hazardous is generated in small Primers quantities. Floor Adhesives Deliming Agents Laboratories and Solvents Unused Products Solid and Yes Low, since most waste Support Facilities Lab Chemicals Spent/Off-Spec Hazardous is generated in small Reagents Solutions quantities and Mercury Mercury Bricks assuming excess stock Inks/Paints Spent Fixer is not accumulated. Thinners Stop Bath Fixer Developer Toner Airports Paints Unused Products Solid and Yes Low, since most waste Cleaners Spent Solvents Hazardous is generated in small Solvents Used Oils quantities. Oils Empty Containers GVW Stations Solvents Spent Solvents Solid and Yes Low, since most waste Cleaners Empty Container Hazardous is generated in small Paints Unused Products quantities. "Ifpesticide containers are emptied and properly rinsed, a hazardous waste is not generated. April 27, 1993 u MDT Environmental Baseline Assessment Report reduction, and recycling is not given the priority CERCLA/CECRA required under RCRA and the Pollution MDT Prevention Act of 1990. has identified over 300 separate sites that are potentially releasing hazardous substances to At least 46,000 gallons ofwaste will need to be the environment. These sites represent a disposed ofby the Department. This is a potential multimillion-dollarliability to the significant liability to MDT since disposal costs MDT. alone may well exceed $500,000 (Table 2). Many MDT facilities use sumps (which drain to The majority ofunderground storage tank (UST) dry wells and septic systems) and onsite dumping systems that are active or inactive lack necessary as a method ofdisposing ofhazardous substances leak detection. and wastes. This practice has the potential to significantly impact soils, groundwater, nearby Most of MDT's facilities could be considered surface waters, and in some cases, adjacent, "conditionally exempt small quantity generators" non-MDT property (Figure 2). since they generate less than 220 lbs (halfofa 55-gallon drum) ofwaste in a given month and Approximately halfofthe sites audited were not never accumulate more than 2,200 lbs (about familiar with the requirements for reporting 5 drums) at any given time. Fewer waste releases ofhazardous substances or the management requirements apply to generators requirements for notifying local authorities ofthe with this status. hazardous substances present at the facility. The majority of MDT facilities are not FIFRA complying with the RCRA requirements for management ofhazardous wastes. The Several sites have expired pesticides which requirements that are not being met include: require proper disposal (Figure 3). — Determining ifa generated waste is a Pesticides are not stored and disposed ofin hazardous waste accordance with EPA recommendations or label directions, inventories ofpesticides are not — Proper storage ofhazardous waste in maintained, and local authorities have not been containers notified ofthe pesticides present at facilities. — Disposal ofhazardous wastes only at TSCA authorized facilities and within allowable time frames Many transformers and several generators that may contain PCBs are present on MDT — Recordkeeping and reporting. property, the majority ofwhich are owned by Table 2. The cost to properly dispose of46,000 gallons ofwaste is estimated at $500,000. Waste Type District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 Total Gallons Paint 1,062 12,612 2,102 1,331 957 18,064 Solvent 220 990 165 165 1,540 Unknown 2,277 4,125 3 127 495 7,027 Oil 6,875 3,795 2,750 655 1,320 15,395 Pesticide 55 55 Herbicide 35 16 51 Miscellaneous 660 350 453 2,585 165 4,213 Total Gallons 10,909 21,102 6,314 4,863 3,157 46,345 April 27, 1993 V7 < MDT II Environmental Baseline Assessment Report PAST/CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PER DISTRICT 40 c/3 30 F 1— C/3 Uh 20 c«u S s z 10 nzi. 2 3 4 5 DISTRICT SUMPS ONSITE DUMPING SPILLS Z2 ONSITE BURNING Figure 2. Of the 263 audit sites, 42% and 36% reported sumps and onsite dumping, respectively. the utility companies but appear to be on MDT that many ofthe root causes are institutional and can be property. These may need to be sampled to described as follows: determine if PCBs are present in the oils and, therefore, present a liability to MDT if released • The Department has not provided the necessary (Figure 4). job-specific training to employees to allow them to conduct their day-to-day operations in an The Department has made a strong first step in instituting environmentally safe and sound manner. an effective materials and waste management program by implementing this audit program. Development of • Financial considerations often drive decision corrective action plans and the Hazardous Materials and making, without any thought as to how this may Waste Management Plan will immediately follow to affect environmental compliance. ensure these findings are addressed. However, in order to minimize the potential for these findings to reoccur, • The Department has not institutedan internal it's necessary to understand the factors contributing to the audit/appraisal program to routinely monitor non-compliance, or the root cause. It is MSE's opinion facility compliance with the regulations. April 27, 1993 vu MDT II Environmental Baseline Assessment Report PCB ITEMS PER DISTRICT 70 60 S 50 a P E 40 o a 30 ffl s p 20 Z 10 12 3 4 5 DISTRICT ^TRANSFORMERS GENERATORS Figure 3. One hundred and twenty-two (122) transformers and eleven (11) generators were reported at MDT facilities. PESTICIDES PER DISTRICT 5 - 4 - 3 2 1 12 A 3 4 5 DISTRICT 53 EXPIRED PEST Z2 UNLABELED PEST Figure 4. Eight (8) sites reported expired pesticides, and 13 sites reported unlabeled pesticides at their facilities. April 27, 1993 viu