Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 123
Appendix F National Governors' Association Mass Balance Survey of State Governments INTRODUCTION In late 198S, the National Governors' Association (NGA) conducted a mass balance survey of state governments under a subcontract with the National Research Council (NRC). The survey was designed to provide information on state governments' actions and plans with respect to mass balance-oriented programs. The NGA survey asked about the characteristics of mass balance activities in states that had conducted or planned to conduct them, including the types of sites covered, the types of environmental releases or waste reduction activities covered, and levels of funding. The survey also solicited opinions on the value and affordability of mass balance activities. The survey was sent to chief environmental protection officials in each of the 50 states; a total of 49 states responded. The questionnaire and a list of the survey respondents are presented at the end of this appendix. STATUS OF MASS BALANCE ACTIVITIES States were asked to describe their involvement in mass balance-oriented activities. The majority of respondents 37 indicated that they have reservations about the mass balance approach and that they either do not plan to conduct mass balance activities or they are undecided. The remaining respondents 12 reported either some experience with mass balance activities or plans to conduct them (see Table Fen. The 12 states reporting some experience with or plans for mass balance were somewhat evenly divided among the first three response categories shown in Table F- 1. Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia indicated they conduct regular mass balance activities. Delaware, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Utah reported plans for mass balance efforts. Maryland, Nebraska, and Wisconsin noted they have conducted or plan to conduct a one-time mass balance survey. Specific state information on mass balance activities is presented in Table F-2. 123
OCR for page 124
124 TABLE F-1 Summary of States Mass Balance Activities Number of States Response 5 4 3 8 29 Conduct continuing mass balance activities Plan continuing mass balance activities Conduct or plan to conduct 8 one-time mass balance surrey Definitely do not plan mass balance activities Undecided New lersey's Department of Environmental Protection is the prime example of a state agency with a comprehensive mass balance program. Under the New Jersey Worker and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1983, the state compiles mass balance-related data from selected manufacturers. For each New Jersey facility producing or using hazardous substances beyond thresholds established under SARA, the following information is required: · starting inventory, in pounds, · quantity produced on site, · quantity brought on site, · quantity consumed on site, and · quantity shipped off site. These data are collected as a supplement to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data reported by manufacturers affected by Section 313 of SARA. This collection program followed the New Jersey Industrial Survey discussed in Chapter 3. Rhode Island's mass balance activity involves a more narrow focus compared to the approach taken by New Jersey. Its department of environmental management requires certain industries to complete air pollution inventory questionnaires. Particular air pollution inventory questions involve a mass balance orientation. For example, the questionnaire for "degreasers and dryers" requires industries to report, for certain volatile organic substances, the amount purchased, the amount removed for disposal or reclamation, and the quantity recovered in carbon absorbers. The amount purchased minus the amount removed or MISS BALANCE INFORMATION recovered is assumed to have entered the atmosphere through evaporation. Rhode Island's use of a limited mass balance approach in air pollution matters is not atypical of other states with mass balance activities. Because actual measurements of emissions are often difficult, particularly where unconfined emission sources are involved, state air pollution agencies sometimes rely on emission estimates. In these cases, mass balance calculations are used as a way to estimate emissions. Connecticut, Vermont, and Virginia also use such an approach in their air pollution control programs. Air pollution control inspectors in the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection commonly use mass balance calculations to estimate the quantities of solvents emitted into the atmosphere from industrial operations. The calculations are used to determine compliance with mass emission limits for the hydrocarbons that react in the atmosphere to form the pollutant ozone. Vermont's Air Pollution Control Division currently uses mass balance techniques in its "State Emissions Inventory" for planning purposes and in case-specific permitting activities. Certain permits issued by the Virginia Department of Air Pollution Control to construct and operate an air pollution source include requirements for demonstrating compliance with emission limitations by use of a mass balance-oriented calculation. Principal targets of such requirements are the same solvents that are of concern in Connecticut. Virginia also accepts mass balance information from applicants for air 1
OCR for page 125
APPENDIX F 125 TABLE F-2 Mass Balance Activities by State Region/State Activities Region/State Activities NORTHEAST SOUTH (cont.) Connecticut Regulara Georgia None Maine None Kentucky None Massachusetts Plannedb Louisiana None New Hampshire None Maryland One-timei New Jersmy RegularC Mississippi None New York Nones North Carolina None Pennsylvania None Oklahoma None Rhode Island Regular South Carolina None Vermont Regular Tennessee None Texas None Vita Regulara MIDWEST West Virginia None Iowa None Kansas None WEST Michigan None Alaska None Minnesota None Arizona None Missouri None California None Nebraska One-time Colorado None North Dakota None Hawaii None Ohio Planned Idaho None South Dakota None Montana None Wisconsin Planned Nevada None New Mexico None SOUTH Oregon None Alabama None Utah Planned Arkansas None Washington None Delaware Planned Wyoming None Florida Nonee aRespondents representing other environmental areas from this state reported no current activities or plans for collecting mass balance data. bRegular program will be established if pending legislation is passed. CAlso conducted the New Jersey Industrial Survey discussed in Chapter 3. The response from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation referred to use of mass balance calculations in the Lake Ontario Tonics Management Plan. However, this effort will apparently be directed toward determine toxic inputs to the lake and outputs from it rather than toward inputs and outputs for individual water pollution sources affecting the lake. The use of mass balance calculations similar to those slated for Lake Ontario have long been a feature of water basin planning projects. 'Conducted as necessary. Due to a low rate of response to the initial survey, the questionnaire was redesigned and mailed a second tune.
OCR for page 126
126 pollution source permits to indicate the expected level of solvent emissions. In addition, Virginia has a long-term survey effort under way to obtain detailed chemical-use information from 4,000 to 5,000 sources of toxic chemicals. Mass balance information is sought in this survey where it is believed to be available. Delaware, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Utah plan to institute regular mass balance activities. Massachusetts will have a regular mass balance requirement as part of its source reduction program only if proposed state legislation passes in its current form. Maryland, Nebraska, and Wisconsin indicated they have conducted or plan to conduct a one-time mass balance survey. In 1982 the Toxics Information Center in the Maryland Department of Environment sent a true mass balance questionnaire to 1,200 manufacturing sites. Data were requested on 274 carcinogens and other toxic chemicals. No more than 1 percent of the questionnaires was returned with complete data. A redesigned questionnaire that asked only for "annual throughput" data (i.e., amounts of chemicals routed through a facility) was mailed to the same manufacturers in 1985. In the second mailing information was sought on 227 carcinogens and 570 other toxic substances. The 1985 questionnaire had a response rate of 90 percent. Although the 1985 information compilation did not reflect a complete manufacturing-site input/output mass balance, the data received has been used by the Maryland agency to set priorities for regulatory actions. The Air Quality Division of the Nebraska Department of Environmental Control mentioned the use of mass balance calculations for release estimates for toxic materials. This mass balancing will be associated with Nebraska's annual Toxic Air Emissions Inventory. STATE ASSESSMENTS OF MASS BALANCE DATA States also were asked for their opinions on the value of mass balance data and about the cost of mass balance activities. The answers were approximately evenly distributed among the different response categories (Table F-3~. AL45S BAIANCE INFORAL4TION Value of Mass Balance Data As shown in Table P-3, a majority of the states 24 indicated mass balance activities may provide valuable data. The next largest group 15 states expressed uncertainty about the value of mass balance compilation. Finally, a small but significant number ~ expressed a negative opinion of mass balance data. Information on how each state views mass balance data is presented in Table F-4. States that found mass balance data to be unreliable or unproven seemed to have concluded that while the concept mass balance is theoretically sound, it is too complex to be applied successful. Georgia's respondent commented, "One can never realistically obtain all the information needed to do mass balances that are accurate enough to be worth anything." Michigan stated: To be a useful information tool, mass balance information must be collected on a facility-specific basis and must include all significant sources of release to the environment.... Aggregated information must be evaluated on an ecosystem basis rather than according to political or institutional boundaries. Such comprehensive data collection and evaluation may well be infeasible. Minnesota provided the most specific comments on the complexity of measuring data for mass balance: It is difficult at best to measure the quantities of chemicals consumed or released at a site. For example, companies do not measure how much solvent is lost through volatilization. Similarly, industrial sites may or may not measure or accurately report quantities of released chemicals. Without good data for all components, there is not true mass balance. The most that could be hoped for would be to collect good data for all but one component the one released- and derive that from a mass balance equation. However, the opportunity for significant inaccuracy in other measured components makes this of dubious value.
OCR for page 127
APPENDIX ~ 127 TABLE F-3 Summary of State Evaluations of Mass Balance Datsa Number of States Response 6b 15C 8 d Data are valuable and worth expending resources now. Data are of unproven merit. Data are unreliable. Data may be valuable but budget limits prevent implementation. This information was not available for Vermont's air pollution mass balance activities. bIn three of these states, respondents representing other environmental areas expressed an opinion indicated the data were unproven or unreliable. CIn one of these states, respondents representing other environmental areas indicated the data were unreliable. Win one of these states, respondents representing other environmental areas indicated the data are unproven. TABLE 17~ Opinions on the Value of Mass Balance Data by State _ _ Potentiall`Valuable Alabama Maine New Jersey Tennessee Alaska Massachusetts New Mexico Utah Colorado Mississippi North Carolina Virginiaa Connecticuta Missouri Ohio Floridsa Montana Oklahoma Hawaii Nebraskaa Pennsylvania Idaho Nevada Rhode Island · - ,oulslana Data's Merit Unproven Arkansasb Maryland Oregon West Virginia California Michigan South Carolina Wisconsin Delaware Minnesota South Dakota Wyoming Indiana New York Washington Data Unreliable Arizona Iowa Kentucly North Dakota Georgia Kansas New Hampshire Texas aRespondents representing other environmental areas within this state did not indicate the data was potentially valuable. bAnother respondent within this state found the data unreliable. . .
OCR for page 128
128 Not surprisingly, all of the programs conducting mass balance activities judged them to be valuable. New Jersey, the state with the most successful mass balance effort, also was the most enthusiastic: "We recommend that mass balance information be collected on a national scale." The Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board, while confident of the value of the mass balance approach, did have reservations: We believe that mass balances are useful over a long enough time period to determine overall efficiency of utilization of a particular compound, but you cannot always quantify where the material was lost. For example, solvents are lost in printing operations, but frequently, the loss occurs gradually from the printed material after the publication is shipped. Many air agency toxic regulations are based on twenty-four hour or shorter time periods. Mass balances can give you an indication of how much is lost to the atmosphere, but over a short time span, they may not be that accurate. Mass balances are a useful tool, however, in determining overall losses from a process. Funding Of the 24 states that viewed mass balance data as valuable, only six thought the technique worthy enough to expend current state resources. Four of these (Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Virginia) conduct regular mass balance activities. Ohio plans a mass balance effort. Florida uses mass balance data on an as-needed basis. Two states that indicated mass balance data would be valuable (Massachusetts and Utah) plan to establish mass balance activities, but are presently subject to budget limitations. (Delaware also plans to establish a program if resources permit, although it is not convinced mass balance data would be valuable.) This leaves 16 states that believe mass balance data to be valuable but cannot fund a program (Table Fug. Several states that indicated a desire to institute or examine mass balance activities but cannot afford to do so called for additional funding. Missouri commented: AL4SS RAL4NCE INFORMATION . . . [the state is] unaware of any funding sources or other resources that are available to the states to assist in evaluating, establishing, or planning such a program. In the absence of such support, it is unlikely that states such as Missouri will be in a position to implement a mass balance program within the next five years. South Carolina commented: This program has some merit and should have a useful application in an overall environmental protection strategy- but~ur environmental protection programs are overworked and underfunded now. We have a hard time with just the basic programs and to put time and effort into mass balance at this time would not be possible. Unless some specific program funding (either state or federal) becomes available, it will be some time before we would be able to accomplish this task. Tennessee was the most emphatic in its call for additional funding: It is unfortunate that the potential for mass-balance as a tool to describe environmental risk was not recognized fully by Congress. To pass a law and not adequately fund or provide for funding is a travesty of health protection. Information on expected fiscal year 1989 expenditures for planning or conducting mass balance information compilation is presented in Table F-6. The amounts budgeted in states regular mass balance activities are small in relation to total agency expenditures. Even in New Jersey, with its relatively sophisticated approach, the expected annual budget for its mass balance program is no more than $100,000. In the states where mass balance budgets appear to be larger, they are usually associated with air pollution control activities. For states planning regular mass balance activities, budgeted amounts range from $2,000 to $100,000. These states do not yet administer regular mass balance activities,
OCR for page 129
APPENDIX F 129 TABLE F-5 Funding for Mass Balance Activities by States Considenug Mass Balance Data as Valuable State Funding Alabama Alaska Colorado Connecticut Fort Hawaii Idaho Louisiana Maine Massachusetts Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Jersey New Mexico North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania Rhode Island Tennessee Utah Virginia None None None Funded Fundeda None None None None Fundedb None None None None None Funded None None Funded None None Funded None Fundedb Funded aFunded as necessary. bSubject to budget limitations. TABLE Fed FiscalYear 1989 Funding of Mass Balance Activities by States Administering or Planning to Administer Such Activities State Funding Connecticut Delaware Massachusetts New Jersey Ohio S200,000 $;35,000 2,000 874~b 65,000 Rhode Island 260,000a Utah Virginia 100,000 275,000a aFunds may include costs not related to mass balance activities. bRepresents the average of the $75,000 to S100,000 estimated by the state. and so these figures could refer to planning or start-up costs. Delaware, Massachusetts, and Utah indi- cated that their plans for mass balance activities are constrained by budget limita- tions, and so their figures definitely do not reflect the costs associated with a func- tioning program.
OCR for page 130
130 M4SS IlAL4NCE INFORMATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION "MASS BALANCE" SURVEY OF STATE GOVERNMENTS * * * The National Research Council has requested the National Governors' Association to conduct this survey. Its purpose is to determine the extent to which state governments now use, or plan to use, a "mass balance" approach in compiling data on environmental releases of toxic, or other harmful, chemicals. The term Mass balance" in the context of the survey means an accumulation of any or all of the following components: the quantities of chemicals transported to a site, produced at a site, consumed at a site, accumulated at a site, released at a site, and transported from a site as a waste or as a commercial product or byproduct or component of a commercial product or byproduct. Through equating site inputs and outputs, the mass balance approach seeks to determine if there are unaccounted for outputs that might represent previously unidentified waste quantities or releases of harmful chemicals. The National Research Council is currently evaluating whether any form of mass balance information would be helpful in assessing: 1) releases of toxic, or other harmful, chemicals across all environmental media (i.e., air, water, land) and 2) the waste reduction efficiencies of different sites. Your answers should exclude data compilation activities (e.g., direct measurement of water pollution effluents, air pollution estimates based upon standard emission factors, etc.) that are not part of, or feature, a mass balance approach. THERE ARE ONLY FIVE QUESTIONS IN ALL.
OCR for page 131
APPENDS F NAME OF RESPONDENT: TITLE: AGENCY: NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION "MASS BALANCE" SURVEY OF STATE GOVERNMENTS UNIT (DIVISION, BRANCH, ETC.): TELEPHONE NUMBER: 131 1. Section 313 (1~3) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) requires the federal EPA to ". . .acquire available mass balance information from States which currently conduct (or during the 5 years after the date of enactment of this title initiate) a mass balance-oriented annual quantity toxic chemical release program...." Please check the box below which describes the activities of your agency with regard to such a"mass balance-oriented" annual program. A. Have established an annual (or some other regular period) program to compile mass balance-oriented information on: 1) toxic, or other harmful, chemical releases, and/or 2) waste-reduction efficiencies. B. Plan to establish a regularly scheduled mass balance-oriented information compilation program for harmful chemicals during the next 5 years. C. Have established, or plan, a "one-time" mass balance-oriented survey related to harmful chemicals, but have no plans for a regularly scheduled program. D. Definitely do not plan to establish a mass balance-oriented information compilation during the next ~ years. E. Undecided about plans for a regularly scheduled mass balance-oriented data compilation effort related to harmful chemicals. F. Other (e.g., plan a mass balance-oriented program for reasons other than to compile data on harmful chemical releases, etc.~. Explain: G. Unfamiliar with term "mass balance." 2. Please check the statement below which comes closest to reflecting your basic opinion about the value to your agency of mass balance-oriented information compilations on harmful chemical releases.
OCR for page 132
132 Question 2 continued: AL4SS BALANCE INFORMATION NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION "MASS BALANCE" SURVEY OF STATE GOVERNMENTS A. Mass balance-oriented information compilations can be expected to provide valuable data to complement information from other sources, and are worth expending agency resources at this time to establish, or plan them on a regular basis. B. Mass balance compilations may provide valuable data for selected companies or institutions, but are of unproven merit for a broad population of sites and this uncertainty makes such compilations a low agency priority. C. Mass balance compilations, for the foreseeable future, will not provide reliable information on harmful chemical releases because precise mass balance measurement or estimation methods do not exist for a large fraction of the industrial and institutional sites of interest. D. Mass balance-oriented information compilations will provide valuable data, but budget limitations prevent my agency from establishing or planning such programs. E. Other. Please specify: F. No opinion. IF YOU MARKED BOX "D" (DEFINITELY DO NOT PLAN) or "G" (UNFAMILIAR) IN ANSWER TO QUESTION #1, YOU NEED NOT ANSWER ANY MORE QUESTIONS. PLEASE RETURN THE FORM IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE. IF YOU MARKED BOX CAP, "El", "C", "E", OR "F" FOR QUESTION #1, PLEASE ANSWER QUESTIONS #3, =4, AND =5 BEFORE RETURNING THE FORM. 3. If you have established, plan, or might plan a mass balance-oriented data compilation activity, please indicate the types of sites that are involved, or most likely to be covered. A. All private and public: 1) sources of toxic, or other harmful, chemical releases, and/or 2) waste generation sources. B. All private sector sources of harmful chemical releases, and/or waste generation sources. but not public sources. C. Only those manufacturing facilities now covered by the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) requirements of Section 313 of SARA. D. Other. Please specify: E. Undecided. ,
OCR for page 133
APPENDIX P 133 NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION MASS BALANCE SURVEY OF STATE GOVERNMENTS 4. If you have established, plan, or might plan a mass balance-oriented data compilation program, please indicate the types of environmental releases or waste reduction efficiencies that are covered, or are likely to be covered. A. All environmental releases or waste reduction efficiencies of selected harmful chemicals such as those on the TRI list or a comparable list. B. All environmental releases of all polluting materials. C. Releases of selected harmful chemicals to one environmental medium or a combination of media (e.g., to the atmosphere, to surface waters and groundwater, etc.) but not to all media. D. Releases of all polluting materials to one medium or a combination of media, but not to all environmental media. E Other. Please specify: F. Undecided. 5. What amount of agency funding, if any, is expected to be expended for planning and/or conducting a mass balance-oriented information compilation program in fiscal year 1989? ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: * * * * *
OCR for page 134
134 ALABAMA John Williford Chief, Field Operations Division Department of Environmental Management 1751 Dickinson Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36130 (205) 271 -7931 ALASKA David DiTraglia Hazardous Waste Program Manager Department of Environmental Conservation Pouch O Juneau, Alaska 9981 1 (907) 465-2666 ARIZONA Arthur Blech Program and Project Specialist Dept. of Environmental Quality 2005 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004 (602) 257-2395 ARKANSAS Milce Bates, Chief, Hazardous Waste Division James B. Jones, Jr., Chief, Air Division Vince Blubaugh, Chief, Water Division Department of Pollution Control and Ecology P.O. Box 9583 Little Rock, Arkansas 72219 (501) 562-7444 CALIFORNIA Charles M. Shulock Assistant to the Secretary Environmental Affairs Agency P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, California 95812 (916) 324-8124 COLORADO Pamela L. Harley Section Chief, Solid Waste and Incident Management Division Department of Health 4210 East 1 1 th Street Denver, Colorado 80220 (303) 331-4830 CONNECTICUT Suzanne Vaughn, SARA Title III Coordinator Phil Florkoski, Principal Environmental Analyst, Air Compliance Unit M455 BALANCE INFO~TION RESPONDENTS Department of Environmental Protection State Office Building 165 Capitol Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 061 15 (203) 566-4856 DELAWARE Phillip G. Retallick Director, Division of Air and Waste Management Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control P.O. Box 1401 Dover, Delaware 19903 (302) 736-4764 FLORIDA Raoul Clarke, Environmental Administrator, Division of Waste Management/~904) 488-0300 Howard L. Rhodes, Director, Division of Water Facilities/~904) 487-1855 Barry D. Andrews, Project Engineer, Bureau of Air Quality Management/~904) 488- 1 344 Florida Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 GEORGIA ]. Leonard Ledbetter, Commissioner Department of Natural Resources 205 Butler Street, S.E., Suite 1252 Atlanta, Georgia 30334 (404) 656-3500 HAWAII Mark Ingaglia Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Coordinator Department of Health P.O. Box 3378 Honolulu, Hawaii 96801 (808) 548-2026 IDAHO Kenneth Brooks Administrator, Division of Environmental Quality Department of Health and Welfare State House Boise, Idaho 83720 (208) 334-~879
OCR for page 135
APPE~F INDIANA Peter I. Rasor Resource Recovery and Planning Section Chief, Office of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Department of Environmental Management Indianapolis, Indiana 46206 (317) 232-~899 IOWA Peter Hamlin, Chief, Air Quality and Solid Waste Bureau/~515) 281 -~852 Darrell McAllister, Chief, Surface and Groundwater Protection Bureau/ (515) 281-~869 Department of Natural Resources 900 East Grand Des Moines, Iowa 50319 KANSAS James Power, Ir. Director of Environment Department of Health and Environment Forbes Field, 740 Building Topeka, Kansas 66620 (913~296-1535 KENTUCKY Russell Barnett Deputy Commissioner Department for Environmental Protection 18 Reilly Road Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 (502) 564-2150 LOUISIANA Atly Brasher, Technical Service Section Program Manager Air Quality Division/~504) 342-9029 Marion Fannaiy, Administrator Water Quality Division/~504) 342-6363 Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 44066 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 MAINE David Boulter Director, Division of Licensing and Enforcement Department of Environmental Protection State House Station #17 Augusta, Maine 04433 (207) 289-2651 135 MARYLAND Martin W. Walsh, Secretary/~301) 225-5385 Alvin Bowles, Chief, Hazardolls Waste Division/~301) 225-5709 A. Balram, Public Health Engineer, Toxics Information Center/~301) 631-3800 Marcia Ways, Health Engineer II, Toxics Information Center/301 ~ 631 -3800 J.L. Hearn, Director, Water Management Administration/~301 ~ 631 -3567 Department of the Environment 201 West Preston Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201 MASSACHUSETTS Niki Roy Source Reduction Policy Coordinator Department of Environmental Quality . . - , _nglneerlng One Winter Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617) 292-5982 MICHIGAN Alan I. Howard Chief, Waste Management Division Department of Natural Resources Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 (517) 373-2730 MINNESOTA Richard A. Svanda Director, Hazardous Waste Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 (612) 296-7784 MISSISSIPPI Caleb Dana Coordinator, Hazardous Waste Division Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Pollution Control P.O. Box 10385 Jackson, Mississippi 39209 (601) 961-5171 MISSOURI William C. Ford Director, Division of Environmental Quality Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 176 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 (314) 751 -4810
OCR for page 136
136 MONTANA Tom Ellerhoff Co-Chairperson of the Montana State Emergency Response Commission Department of Health and Environmental Sciences State Capitol Helena, Montana 59601 (406) 444-3948 NEBRASKA Carol Wilson, Program Specialist, Hazardous Waste Section, Land Quality Division/~402) 471 -4217 Bill Gidley, Section Supervisor, Water Permits and Compliance Section/~402) 471 -4239 Glenn R. Dively, Environmental Engineer, Air Quality Division/~402) 471-4204 . Department of Environmental Control Box 98922, State House Station Lincoln, Nebraska 68509 NEVADA Verne Ross Waste Management Program Director, Division of Environmental Protection Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 201 South Fall Street Carson City, Nevada 89710 (702) 885-4670 NEW HAMPSHIRE George Mollineaux, Assistant Commissioner Department of Environmental Services P.O. Box 95 6 Hazen Drive Concord, New Hampshire 03301 (603) 271-2925 Leland M. Kimball Coordinator, State Emergency Response Commission Office of Emergency Management 107 Pleasant Street Concord, New Hampshire 03301 (603) 271 -2231 NEW JERSEY Donald A. Deieso Assistant Commissioner Department of Environmental Protection CN 402 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 (609) 984-3219 M455 BAIANCE INFORMATION NEW MEXICO Samuel Larcombe Title III Bureau Chief Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 1628 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-1628 (505) 827-9224 NEW YORK Langdon Marsh Executive Deputy Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation Albany, New York 12233- 101 (518) 457-6804 NORTH CAROLINA George Everett, Deputy Director Division of Environmental Management Department of Natural Resources and Community Development P.O. Box 27687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 -7687 (919) 733-7015 NORTH DAKOTA Gene A. Christianson Chief, Environmental Health Section Department of Health State Capitol Bismarck, North Dakota 58505 (701) 223-7183 OHIO Richard L. Shank Director, Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149 (614) 644-2270 OKLAHOMA Lawrence A. Gales Programs Assistant Administrator for Environmental Health Services Department of Health P.O. Box 53551 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152 (405) 271-8056 OREGON Bruce Sutherland Title III Planning Coordinator Department of Environmental Quality 811 Southwest Sixth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 (503) 229-6047
OCR for page 137
APPENDIX F PENNSYLVANIA Richard M. Boardman Director, Office of Environmental Management Department of Environmental Resources P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 (717) 787-5027 RHODE ISLAND Martha Delaney Mulcahey, Senior Engineer Division of Air and Hazardous Materials Department of Environmental Management 75 Davis Street Providence, Rhode Island 02908 (401) 277-2808 SOUTH CAROLINA R. Lewis Shaw Deputy Commissioner for Environmental Quality Control Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 (803) 734-5360 SOUTH DAKOTA Steve Pirner Director, Division of Land and Water Quality Program Department of Water and Natural Resources Joe Foss Building Pierre, South Dakota 57501 (605) 773-3151 TENNESSEE Wayne E. Cantrell Director of Policy Planning, Environmental Epidemiology Department of Health and Environment 100 Ninth Avenue North Nashville, Tennessee 37219-5405 (615) 741 -5683 TEXAS Bobby D. Whitefield, Chief, Information and Technical Services, Hazardous and Solid Waste Division/~512) 463-7780 Clyde E. Bohmfalk, Director, Water Quality Division/~512) 463-8412 Texas Water Commission 1700 North Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78711 -3087 137 James C. Myers, Director, Enforcement Texas Air Control Board 6330 Highway 290 East Austin, Texas 78723 (512) 451-5711 UTAH Neil Taylor Title III Manager Department of Health 3266 State Office Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 (801) 538-6121 VERMONT John C. Miller Hazardous Materials Specialist Department of Environmental Conservation 103 South Main Street, West Building Waterbury, Vermont 05676 (802) 244-8702 VIRGINIA Harry Gregori Director, Office of Policy and Planning Department of Waste Management 11th Floor, Monroe Building 101 N. 14th Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 225-2667 Richard L. Cook, Executive Director State Air Pollution Control Board P.O. Box 10089 Richmond, Virginia 23240 (804) 225-3634 Bernard I. Caton Deputy Executive Director State Water Control Board P.O. Box 11143 Richmond, Virginia 23230- 1143 (804) 367-0120 WASHINGTON Christine O. Gregoire, Director Department of Ecology Mail Stop PV- 11 Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 (206) 459-6000 WEST VIRGINIA Robert L. Jelacic Assistant Chief, Hazardous Waste Management Department of Natural Resources 1260 Greenbrier Street Charleston, West Virginia 25311 (304) 348-5935
OCR for page 138
138 WISCONSIN Russ Dunst, Toxics Coordinator Office of Technical Services Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin (608) 266-9255 AL4SS BALANCE INFOR~4TION WYOMING Randolph Wood, Director Department of Environmental Quality 122 W. 25th Street Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 (307) 777-7938
Representative terms from entire chapter: