|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
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:
balance activities
