-------
REGIONAL ECOLOGICAL AND HUMAN
HEALTH RISK RANKINGS
All ten EPA Regions have completed comparative risk assessments of
some 22 environmental "problem areas/' ranging from indoor air to global
warming. The following two pages summarize the Regional rankings (from high
to low) for ecological and human health risks. For example, all ten regions con-
sider physical degradation of terrestrial and aquatic habitats the ecological risk of
greatest concern, while aggregated groundwater was of least concern to most
regions. The method of averaging and the individual risk ranking systems are
available from the Regional and State Planning Branch or the Environmental
Results and Forecasting Branch.
-------
Regional Ecological Risk Rankings
High Medium-High Medium Medium-Low Low
ysical Degradation of Terrestrial
'cosystems
Physical Degradation of Water and
Wetland Habitats
CO2 and Global Warming
Pesticides
Industrial Wastewater
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Storage Tanks
Municipal Solid Waste
Industrial Solid Waste
Radiation other than Radon
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Municipal Wastewater
Superfund Hazardous Waste
Airborne Lead
SOx, NOx, and Acid Rain
Paniculate Matter
•iazardous Air Pollutants
Accidental Chemical Releases
All
All
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion I 4,5,6,7,8 |
Non-point Sources
1,2,3,5,7,8,9,10
•6,7,9,10'
"2,4,5,8"
-1,2-
"2,4,5,10 1 [ 1,3,7.8,9 ] ,
-1.4.7 11 2,3,5,6,8,10
"1,3,4-
,8
2,6,7,9,10 j
•1,4,7-
I i 2.6.8 1
1,4,7-
-3,5,9,10 1
1,2,4,7,8,10
"3.4,5,10 11 2,7,9-
-2,4.10
1,3,7.8.9
-3.5 . I 1,4,7,8,9 11
-2,10-
"1.4.6.9"
i i 3.4,5-
.10.
.10.
"2,6,8,10"
Aggregated Groundwater
-4,7-
-------
Regional Human Health Risk Rankings
High Medium-High Medium Medium-Low
or Radon
Indoor Air other than Radon
Pesticides
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
Municipal Wastewater
Municipal Solid Waste
Industrial Solid Waste
Storage Tanks
Airborne Lead
rticulate Matter
mi •
•
Aggregated Drinking Water
Industrial Wastewater
Non-point Sources
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Superfund Hazardous Waste
Radiation other than Radon
Hazardous Air Pollutants
SOx, NOx, and Acid Rain
^5
Tec
gregated Groundwater
I
"ccidental Chemical Releases
CO2 and Global Wanning
Low
All
2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10
.1,9-
6,73,9,10
"1,2,4,5-
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide L—1A6,7,9
4,5,8-
-3,10-
"2,5,6.7 1
-1,7-
-1,7-
2,4,7.9,10
=7.
_7.
—
.5.
_7.
-4,7-
1,2,3,5,6,9,10
•1,2.5.6
[1,3.5.6,8.9,10
1,3.6.8.9.10 1
3.4,7.9,10
-6,8,9-
•3.4,9.10 j
-2,8,9-
l 3.4,10-
-5,6-
1.2,3,4.6.9.10 J 8
-3.4.7
2.5,6.8.9 \
JO.
•2,3,5-
•1,4,7,9-
-6,10.
-4.7 ,| 3.5.6,8,9,10 j 1
5,6-
_8_.
-1,8-
| 1.2.4.7.10
-1.2,10 [ i 3.4,9-
•2,7,9-
1.6.8,10 j
=1-
_4.
-------
KEY QUESTIONS TO BE
ADDRESSED BY THE BREAK-OUT SESSIONS
AND CROSS-PROGRAM SESSIONS
- Answers will also be reported back to the Plenary -
I. Should anything be added to (or subtracted from) the definition of an envi-
ronmental indicator and the characteristics of a good environmental indica-
tor?
2. What information (i.e. environmental indicators) could be used to measure
the effect of this program on the environment? Consider this the discussion of
the ''ideal" indicator.
3. Are the data presently available to report on these indicators?
(a) Where is the data?
(b) Who has the data?
(c) What is the format of the data?
(d) Does this data have application as national, regional, state, local indica-
tors? (See graphic on differences among these indicators)
4. If the data on "ideaTindicators are not available, what are the "best practi-
cal" indicators which could be used while acquiring better data over time?
(a) Where is the data?
(b) Who has the data?
(c) What is the format of the data?
(d) Does this data have application as national, regional, state,local indica-
tors? (See graphic on differences among these indicators)
(e) What other data do we need?
5. How do the "ideal"and "best practical" indicators compare to the indicators
proposed in the strategic plans and in ATS? (See matrix in the notebook).
6. What are the barriers to using existing best practical indicators? Ideal indicators?
7. What issues/questions need to be addressed by Headquarters, the regions,
and states to acquire the data needed to report on a consistent set of national
indicators?
8. What are 5 short (1 year) and longer term (4 year) options for overcoming these
barriers?
-------
09
a
03
0
a.
$
-------
OAR Reported Indicators
Under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) program,
OAR has reported indicators for criteria air pollutants (NC>2, SC>2, Lead,
CO, TSR and Ozone) since the 1970s as illustrated on the following six
pages.
-------
LEAD AIR QUALITY
2.5
HAXHUH QUARTERLY AVERAGE
2 -
1.5
1 -
0.5 •
138 SITES
4$* 40 40. 40 it* 4** if 40 4*
LEAD EMISSIONS
125
mouarrauu. PROCESSES
90UO WASTE
4&' 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
-------
D.30
3.00
OZONE AIR QUALITY
CONCENTRATION, PPM
SECOND HIGH DAILY MAX 1-HOUR
3.25 -
3.20 -
3.15 -
8.10 -
3.05 -
388 SITES
35
VOC EMISSIONS
10* METRIC TONS/YEAR
30 -
25
20
SOURCE CATEGORY
• TRANSPORTATION
NOUSTRIAL PROCESSES
m Fua COMBUSTION
SOUD WASTE 4MISC
-------
m
oo
00
0)
c
o
-------
L
SO2 AIR QUALITY
ANNUAL MEAN
OOW
oato
374 SITES
30
K)1
20 -
10 -
SOx EMISSIONS
SOURCE CATEGORY
-------
NO2 AIR QUALITY
1.07
CONCBfTRATOf PPM'
(.06 -
1.05 -
1.04 -
).B3 -
).02 -
NOx EMISSIONS
10" METRIC TONS/TEAR
SOURCE CATEGORY
TRANSPORTATION
FUEL COMBUSTION
MOUSTRUU. PROCESSES
5« SOUO WASTE t MISC.
-------
CO AIR QUALITY
20
CONCENTRATION, PPM
15 -
SECOND HIGHEST 8-HOUR
10 -
CO EMISSIONS
120
100
80
10* METRIC TONS/YEAR
SOURCE CATEGORY
• TRANSPORTATION
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
Kf SOUO WASTE 4 UISC
-------
TSP AIR QUALITY
100 -
80 -
ANNUAL GEOMETRIC WEAN
60 -
40 -
TSP EMISSIONS
TONS/YEAR
SOURCE CATEGORY
TRANSPORTATION
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
SOUD WASTE 4MISC
-------
OAR Reported Indicators/ Acid Deposition:
Nitrate Deposition, and Precipitation pH (Acidity)
-------
-------
322323222222
*
-------
Office of Air and Radiation Proposed Indicators
Stratospheric Ozone:
Stratospheric concentrations of chlorine reduced based on direct
monitoring
Stratospheric concentrations of chlorine reduced based on NOAA
emissions modeling
Production/consumption of ozone-depleting chemicals eliminated in the
U.S. and internationally
Monitoring of UV-B levels at Earth's surface demonstrate ozone shield
restored to effective levels
Global Warming:
Carbon dioxide emissions (worldwide) reduced
Methane emissions reduced and atmospheric concentration stabilized
Average global temperature does more rise by more that 0.3 °C by year
2050
Acid Rain:
Sulfur dioxide emissions reduced 10 million tons below the 1980
baseline
Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide deposition is reduced
pH of x number of streams and lakes increase by x points or x percent
within x timeframe
"x" number of streams and lakes are restored to productivity due to
reductions in sulfur dioxide and/or nitrogen oxide emissions yielding x
tons incremental increase in fish and other biomass
Visibility in ("x" geographic area) increases by X percent
Ambient levels of acidic aerosols (in x deposition areas) decline by x
amount or x percent in x time after controls are implemented
Air Toxics Reductions:
Actual on-site measurements indicate reduced emissions of toxics from
major stationary sources
-------
Actual measurements at points of human exposure indicate reduced
ambient amounts of toxics
Estimates of risk reduction
Estimates of reductions in toxics emissions based on: the number of
sources estimates to be in compliance with MACT standards, the number
of sources with voluntary reductions, estimates from the Motor Vehicle
Control Program, state and local regulatory information, and estimates
based on the SARA 313 - Toxics Release Inventory [TRI] database
Radon and Indoor Air:
Number of new homes/buildings constructed with radon-resistant
techniques or design features
Number os existing homes tested nationwide
Number of existing homes tested in targeted areas
Number of homes testes with radon level about the action level that are
mitigated
Number of comprehensive state radon programs established
Number of state/local building codes amended to require radon-resistant
techniques or design features
Number of states/localities requiring radon inspections or other action as •
a part of real estate transactions
Indoor air trends analysis, based on actual measurements, shows lowered
levels of pollutants in indoor ambient air
Indoor air trends analysis, based on review of building parameters show
more building with acceptable parameters
Cross Media Radioactive Waste and Emergency Response:
Indicators of effectiveness of the radioactive waste disposal regulatory
program include:
-the number and substance of the regulatory standards established
-results of actual monitoring of released at disposal sites
-------
Indicators of effectiveness of radiological emergency response planning
and preparedness include:
-the promptness of response to any emergency
-the post-hoc analysis of actual casualties and estimation of
casualties avoided due to the response
-------
-------
Office of Water: Reported Indicators
Drinking Water
Significant Non-compliance of Community Water Systems
Rivers and Streams
Designated Use Support (See Figure)
Coastal
Shellfish Harvest Area Classifications (See Figure)
General
Number of Waters on Toxic Impact Lists *
Lakes
Numbers/acres of Lakes in Various Trophic States (See Table)
Wetlands'
Wetland Acreage * *
* Tables not included in notebook. This indicator is partially based on
environmental data, but state to state administrative differences are so
major OPPE is concerned it may not be fair to some states to consider it
an environmental indicator.
* * Tables show discrepancies between State-reported data and data from
the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory.
-------
Number of Public Water Systems in Significant
Noncompliance with Drinking Water Standards
The Office of Drinking Water (ODW) has been reporting this
indicator in their National Compliance Reports (see figure next
page). In the future, ODW and OPPE will work together to report an
improved indicator -- populations exposed to drinking water
standard violations, using data that are already reported to the
Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS).
-------
o
ON
COO
4
o
O 0)
""^^
C >
lo
.2
.Q
S
.9
s
.S
a
I
6
4
«i
= 1
O
k O
HO
s
i
3
O5
CO
90
N
i
£
03
fe
SO
(0
CO
o
• o
CO
0)
«•— OS •—
°.;="|-
III
8.
A
O
Z
CO
E
0)
o
I
.g
A
.1
O5
CO
1
0)
c
CO
o
1
1
o
~a
CD
to
cr
c
2
'>"
JUJ
-------
•
-------
-------
(ft
I
o
§o
3
o
TJ
0
**
O
I
<
1ft
(Q
!I if
i fi lilti
-------
OW: Reported Indicator
LAKE TROPHIC STATUS
The identification of trophic status is the most commonly used
indicator of lake water quality and provides a scientifically well
understood, if not complete, measure of the ecological-health of a
waterbody. Despite its well-sounding prefix, a eutrophic lake is often one
with poor or declining water quality. When a lake is eutrophic, the
presence of excessive quantities of nutrients leads to alga! blooms which
can, when decayed, deplete the waterbody of oxygen, rendering it
unsuitable for aquatic life. While eutrophication is a natural aging
process, it can be accelerated by nutrient enrichment from sewage
discharge and run-off from agricultural fertilizers, feedlots, detergents
and other sources. In most cases, phosphorous is the'primary nutrient
which affects algal production.
States report on the trophic status of publicly owned lakes in their
305(b) reports and in Clean Lake Classification reports that States file
under Section 314 of the Clean Water Act. The trophic of a waterbody is
generally, though not uniformly, reported in the following categories, in
order of increasing eutrophication: oligotrophic, mesotrophic, eutrophic,
hypertrophic, or dystrophic (low in nutrients, but colored with dissolved
humic organic mater). (See tables on following pages.)
-------
Trophic Status of the Nation's
STATE TOTAL LAKES OLIG.
ASSESSED
MESO.
EUTR.
HYPER.
OTHFR
CONNECT.
MAINE
MASSACHU.
RHODE IS.
VERMONT
NEW JERSEY
PUERTO RICO
DELAWARE
DIST. COL.
MARYLAND
PENNSYL .
VIRGINIA
WEST VIRG.
ALABAMA
FLORIDA
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI
N. CAROLINA
S. CAROLINA
TENNESSEE
ILLINOIS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
OHIO
NISCONSIN
LOUISIANA
NEW MEXICO
OKLAHOMA
IOWA
KANSAS
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
COLORADO
MONTANA
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
UTAH
TOTALS
204
1882
414
56
184
21
18
30
3
62
53
219
76
34
142
99
33
120
40
109
278
684
1563
125
578
101
55
67
114
217
103
45
65
48
149
129
62
8182
'/. (100)
38
154
28
5
28
0
4
0
0
2
1
23
18
2
84
12
0
27
0
19
3
99
202
0
16
0
5
8
0
0
8
0
8
6
0
0
10
810
(9.9)
95
1075
124
21
104
0
2
0
2
15
39
65
29
21
30
31
0
4
33
17
357
529
30
332
0
9
17
0
56
36
2
25
21
12
8
36
3205
(39.2)
29
653
202
14
38
21
12
30
1
45
13
130
29
6
28
56
33
44
36
50
136
228
539
69
230
101
31
35
114
97
56
31
32
16
58
121
15
3379
(41.3)
i I
0
0
n
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
9
0
7
0
?93
26
n
0
0
7
0
64
3
12
0
0
79
0
I
693
<« . S)
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
51
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
66
-------
Trophic Status of the Nation's lak»«; h-. FTA Region
[Optional -- also final version of taM» on previo
page would likely fc>«» put in
alphabetical order)
REGION 1
REGION 2
REGION 3
REGION 4
REGION 5
REGION 6
REGION 7
REGION 8
NATION
TOTAL LAKES
ASSESSED
. 2740 •'
'/. (100)
.39
X (100)
443
X (100)
577
X (100)
3228
X (100)
223
X (100)
479
X (100)
453
X (100)
8182
X (100)
OLIG.
253
(9.2)
4
(10.3)
44
(9.9)
144
(25.0)
320
( 9.9)
13
(5.8)
8
(1.7)
24
(5.3)
810
(9.9)
MESO.
1419
(51.8)
2
(5.1)
150
(33.9)
' 147
(25.5)
1265
(39.2)
26
(11 .7)
94
(19.6)
102
(22.5)
3205
(39.2)
FUTR.
936
(34.?)
33
(84.6)
248
(56.0)
253
(43.8)
1202
(37.2)
167
(74.9)
298
(42.2)
242
(53.4)
3379
(41.3)
HYTFR'
70
(? f. i
0
(0)
0
(n.o i
16
(? * >
'('fl
( M 7 >
7
(3 1 )
70
( I* . "> >
80
(17.7)
693
(8.5)
DYS . (HHFR
15 47
«1) (1.7)
0 0
(0 > (0)
1 0
«1 ) (0.0)
12 5
(2.1) «t )
0 0
(0.0) (0.0)
1 9
« I ) (4.0)
0 0
(0.0) (0.0)
0 5
(0.0) (I .1)
29 66
«1 ) «1 )
-------
Amount of Wetlands (Coastal and Freshwater) in
Each Reporting State, as Reported in State 305(b) Reports
Note: There are discrepancies in accounting/reporting between these data and
USFWS data (shown in next table)
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
IA
ME
MD
MA
Ml
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
'•Not
Wetlands
(acres)
3,000,000
> 170,000,000
*
800,000
*
*
469,156
221,800
11,400,000
5,000,000
101,749
*
1,175,000
*
36,852
34,256
* '
5,882,070
. 5,199,360
*
588,486
it
. 5,020,000
642,000
*
1,882,176
361,842
136,650
102,941
900,000
reported
Total Surface Area % of Surface Area
(acres) covered
32,490,880
375,040,000
33,920,000
3,205,760
1,267,840
37,544,700
38,341,760
4,112,000
36,060,800
1 36,016,000
52,657,500
30,477,440
21,289,600
5,301,760
54,686,080
30,521,200
94,108,800
49,425,280
70,758,900
5,954,560
4,983,900
Source 1990 State Section
by Wetlands
9.2
45.3
*
2.4
*
*
14.6
17.5
30.4
.13
2.5
*
3.3
*
0.1
0.07
*
19.3
24.4
*
11.1
*
9.2
2.1
*
2
0.7
0.2
1.7
18.1
305(b) reports
-------
Wetlands Total Surface Area
NM '
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
R!
SC
SD
TN
TX -
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV-
Wl
WY
DC
PR
VI
(acres)
*
1,025,000
3,392,000
2,000,000
*
356,647
161,844
498,000
60,873
4,700,000
1,332,562
787,000
6,976,000 -
1 ,000,000
220,000
1 ,044,900
1 ,500,000
102,000
5,331,392
940,000
49
*
3,408
(acres)
31,728,640
33,735,680
45,225,600
44,748,160
62,126,720
29,013,120
775,900
19,329,920
49,310,080
27,036,160
•167,690,880
52,526,720
6,149,760
26,122,880
42,743,040
15,508,100
35,938,560
62,664,960
44,160
178,080
% of Surface A
covered by We
*
3.2
10
4.4
*
0.8
0.3
1.7
7.8
24.3
2.7
2.9
4.1
1.9
3.6
4
3.5
0.7
14.8
1.5
0.1
*
2.2
* Not reported
Source 1990 State Section 305(b) reports
-------
Wetlands
*-2
The National Wetlands Inventory
The National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) is a long-
term program of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to map
the Nation's coastal and
inland wetlands. Wetland
maps developed by the NWI
provide important informa-
tion on the extent of State
wetland resources and
provide a basis for a wide
variety of regulatory and
nonregulatory activities. The
NWI also provides a consist-
ent way of reporting the
extent of wetlands by State.
Wetlands are mapped
primarily by the use of good-
quality, high-altitude aerial
photography. Wetlands are
identified from these photos,
and their boundaries are
transferred to maps. Wetland
acreage is then estimated
from the completed maps.
1b date, approximately 60
percent of the lower 48
States, 100 percent of
Hawaii, and 16 percent of
Alaska have been mapped.
Table 5-2 summarizes wet-
land acreage by State. Six
States have greater than
5 million acres of wetlands,
12 States have between 1 and
5 million acres, 8 States have
between 500,000 and 1 million
acres, and 13 States have less
than 500,000 acres of wet-
lands (see Figure 5-4). Reli-
able data are not available
for 11 States.
As discussed earlier in
this report, several States
provided estimates of current
wetland acreage in their
305(b) reports. In order to
provide a consistent basis for
comparing wetland acreage
between States, Table 5-2
includes wetland acreage
estimates provided only by
NWI. No attempt has been
made to compare what the
States reported in 19S8
against the findings of the
NWI.
Source: 1988 National Wetlands Inventory.
Roy re 5-4. Wetland* Acreage Distribution Nationwide
96
-------
FROM 1988 Water Quality inventory Report to Congress
Wetlands
Table 5-2. Estimated Wetland Area by State
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois .
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wast Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Acre*
(in thousands)
3.069
2.764
389
675
261
223
11.333
5,298
110
712
285
435
205
8.674
1,731
438
542
5.583
7.540
4.067
836
.1,906
190
916
482
1,184
5,690
2.868
1.270
498
84
4,659
1.548
787
3.957
584
1,045
748
102
4,410
Percent of Total
'State Land Area
9
8
1
1
8
18
33
14
-,__
2
. 1
1
1
30
9
7
11
15
15
13
2
4
3
19
1
4
18
7
3
2
13
24
3
3
2
1
4
2
>1
13
— ftetiabte wetland area data not avaHabto.
Source: US. Rah and Wildlife Sorvic*. National WettanOs Inventory, June 1988
97
-------
Office of Water: Reported Indicator, But Not in
Strategic Plan
Attainment of Clean Water Act goals
Note: Although not- included in the OW Strategic Plan, OW provided
data on attainment of "fishable" and "swimmable" goals as part of the
1990 national 305(b) report. Indicator can take into account information
different from that used in assessing designated use support (e.g. fishery
closures) and is easily understood by public. However, due to
inconsistent determinations of "fishable1 and "swimmable" among states,
OW decided to omit this indicator from their Strategic Plan.
-------
Office of Water: Proposed Indicators
Coastal
Dead Zones
Biological Community Integrity
Habitat
Designated Use Support
Shellfish Bed Closure Baseline
Finfish Ban Baseline
Beach Closure Baseline
Toxics in Fish and Shellfish
Marine Debris Baseline
Industrial Waste Baseline
Dredged Material Baseline
Rivers and Streams
Biological Community Integrity
Extent of Hypoxia/Anoxia
Wetlands Acreage
Fishing Bans
Adoptions of Biocriteria by States
Designated Use Support
Lakes
»
Biological Community Integrity
Lake Trophic Status
Wetland Acreage
Designated Use Support
Toxics in Fish and Shellfish
Wetlands
Acreage
Functional Integrity
Landscape Integrity
Note: No reporting dates established on any of the above indicators.
-------
Office of Water: Proposed Indicators
Ground Water: Number of. public water supplies with MCL violations,
6/15/92
Hazardous waste sites with on and off-site G.W. contamination, 6/15/92
Waste sites and industrial sites with VOC contamination, 6/15/92
Area-wide sources of nitrate contamination, 6/15/92
Area-wide sources of pesticide contamination, 6/15/92
Note: Dates shown are targets for potential inclusion in the 1992
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators (ASWIPCA) report.
-------
Office of,Water: Indicators Proposed and Planned
Reporting Dates from ATS
Drinking Water: Underground Injection Control
Number of mechanical integrity tests conducted, test results
(passed or failed), and whether appropriate action was taken,
12/31/90
Drinking Water: Public Water Supply
Number of people exposed to Phase I VOCs, 10/31//93
People exposed to poorly filtered water 10/31/93
People exposed to coliform bacteria, 10/31/93
Number of violation of rules for lead, phase II VOCs,
radionuctides, 10/31/93
-------
i
i
-------
Superfund
Reported Data
-------
Superfund Indicators Reported in FY 90
As shown in the following figures, environmental progress was
documented during FY 90 for 604 Superfund sites. This data reflects
progress to date in the Superfund program. Specifically, progress was
reported in terms of .these three indicators:
Addressing Acute Threats: This indicator describes the number of sites
where immediate actions to protect nearby populations and to control the
threat of exposure to hazardous contaminants have been taken. It
includes all emergency actions at NPL sites and emergency actions that
cost more than $200,000 at non-NPL sites.
Achievement of Health and Environmental Goals: This measure reports
progress at sites toward the 'goals' established in the appropriate Record
of Decision (ROD). For example, if ground water at a particular site is
contaminated, the goals will usually be expressed in terms of the
concentration of key contaminants that must be achieved before the
subsurface water is considered clean. In some cases - particularly for the
land surface - varying goals are established for different areas of a given
site. In addition, different parts of a site may be at different stages of
cleanup. In 1990, progress was reported in two categories:
• Cleanup Initiated: This measures the number of sites where
hazardous wastes or contaminated water or soil have actually been
addressed at a site or medium (i.e., actual physical cleanup has
begun), but work has not gone far enough to claim with any certainty a
great deal of progress.
• Progress Toward Cleanup: This describes the number of sites where
one or more contaminated areas - such as two out of three lagoons, or
the northern section but not the southern section of a site - have been
cleaned up to meet permanent health and environmental standards,
but not all of the work for the particular site or medium has been done.
This also includes cases where cleanup goals for a site or medium
have been fully achieved, i.e., the land is clean, the surface water is
clean, and so on.
Quantities of Waste Managed: This measure reports the sheer volume of
hazardous waste that has been moved in cleaning up sites. Absolute
information about volumes and quantities is not always available, and the
amount of waste handled to date is only rarely reported as a comparison
to the total amount of waste to be addressed. Therefore, this information
is provided only as a general progress indicator. In addition, although
physical volumes are a poor measure of actual risk reduction, they
provide a useful measure by which to understand the magnitude of the
Superfund program and help explain its duration and cost.
-------
. (0
m *>
3 **
4i •••
O)
o>
(AV
e e
e
(B e •
O |s
- CO
IL<
•O »8
rii
O
CO
UJ
(J) 05
I I
OS
CD
O
o>
CO
%
•o
0>
O. o-
C/D =3
B ik
s
CO
s § s
c
O (0
12
Z O
Q.
UJ
CO
3
I
o
CO
u
I
CQ
O)
T3
CO
i
c
o
jl
-------
O
0)
O
(6
O
O
a
r-
CD
5 2
O
a
a>
o
«
o
O
I
o
a
0)
£3
o
52
«
o
5
Is
i
i
O)
I
10
P
O
.E
I
u.
cc
UJ
a.
u
to
g
i
sr
IB
'c
LU
-------
0)
•K
(0
(0
^
t
0)
•0
CO
w
2
T3
or>
at
S
0
I
J3 O.
W
S
1
§
O
•-« co
s
O
15
o
'•S
o
o
(5 9
5
*rV
CO (A
•° -3
1 f
K
0>
0>
*; Ji
"§
1
»
8
-a
5
"w*
"w
Q.
1
o
CJ
r***
•o
c
CO
«
o>
^—i
"to
_J
D_
C\J
CO
eg
d)
o>
^o
•o
_®
'5.
E
0
o
i
T3
CD
T3
(0
1
^^
S
«
E
CO
03
^
^
•g
>
c
o
(0
S
0
*
§
2
§
0
S
TJ
^
2
c
c
8
">
iS
1
CO
Cfl
£
£
c
O
en
c
o
a.
09
tr
Q
D
u.
cc
CL
D
CO
0)
S£
1
01
! UJ
-------
Resource Conservation Recovery Act
Reported Data
-------
Office of Solid Waste Indicators Reported in 199O
The data source used in reporting on the environmental indicators for
hazardous waste was the 1987, "National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Generators," known as the Generator Survey. As OSW acknowledged
in its November 1990 ATS submission, the Generator Survey
includes data on wastes other than RCRA hazardous waste (e.g.
PCBs, state regulated hazardous wastes, etc.). In future reporting on
these indicators, OSW will use the Biennial Report and other data
sources to avoid the problem of non-RCRA hazardous wastes being
included in the .data. It is unlikely that data, reported in 1990 can be
used as a baseline for future environmental indicator reporting or
trend analysis.
Three indicators were reported on by OSW in 1990.
Highlights of reported data include the following:
(1) Quantity of hazardous waste generated!
• 744,348,187 tons of hazardous waste were generated by 16,028
generators
• 455 million tons (60%) was managed in exempt units only
• 289 million tons (40%) was managed in RCRA regulated units
• 30% of all generators accounted for 46% of all the hazardous waste
generated in the U.S. and are located in five states (Texas, New
Jersey, Michigan, California, and Virginia)
• Industrial organic chemicals accounted for 18% of all wastes
generated, even though they comprise less that 2% of all generators
• Approximately 40% of all hazardous waste generated were either
solely corrosive waste (D002) or D002 mixed with other waste
• The largest source processes of hazardous waste were (in millions of
tons):
Other production processes (14.4)
Waste water treatment - exempt (10.7)
Electroplating (9,.0)
. Hydrogenation (7.1)
Distillation and fractionation (7.0)
-------
(2) Ratio of hazardous waste generated to
product/oil quantity ratio:
The purpose of this indicator was to capture the quantity of waste
generated that cannot be explained by changes in production. The
method used in this calculation was to calculate 'value added' because
data on production levels were not reported in the Generator Survey. This
indicator revealed that the industries generating the greatest quantity of
hazardous wastes did not necessarily generate the greatest amount of
hazardous waste per unit of production.
The six industries with the largest ratio of hazardous waste generated to
value added were:
Explosives (42.1)
Industrial organic chemicals (11.4)
Cyclic crudes and intermediates (10.7)
Inorganic pigments (9.3)
Small arms ammunition (9.3)
Pulp mills (9.1)
(3) Number of hazardous waste generators reporting waste
minimization activities:
The data reported were the number of generators with waste minimization
programs, defined as a reduction in volume or toxicity of waste.
Number of respondents in the Generator Survey = 16,028
Generators with waste minimization programs: 13,036 .
Generators without waste minimization programs: 2,992
Generators implementing programs: 7,053
25% implementing programs report decreases in quantity of waste
generated
80% implementing programs report decreases in toxicity levels
-------
Superfund
Proposed Indicators
-------
Proposed Indicators for OERR (Based on ATS*)
Population protected from current and future threat (feasibility study to
be completed in FY 1991 - 1992)
Reduced concentrations of contaminants/comparison with health
standards (feasibility study to be completed in FY 1992)
Ecological Indicator ( not yet defined)
During FY 1991, OERR will examine feasibility of indicators
recommended by OPPE:
1) reduced contaminant stress,
2) improved biological health and,
3) reduced threats to sensitive environments
*WhiIe these indicators are included in OERR's ATS commitments, they
are not mentioned in OSWER's strategic plan.
-------
Resource Conservation Recovery Act
Proposed Indicators
-------
Future Environmental Indicators Proposed by OSW in ATS
OSW proposed to continue reporting on the environmental indicators
reported on this year, with some modifications. Note: The data source for
future reporting on these indicators will be the Biennial Report.
• Quantity of hazardous waste generated:
Continues
• Ratio of hazardous waste generated to production quantity:
Continues ;
• Quantity of hazardous waste prevented due to waste minimization
activities:
Improved over 1990 in that actual quantities of waste will be reported
New Addition to OSW ATS Environmental Indicators
Reporting Schedule:
• Identify additional environmental indicators for waste minimization,
waste management, and corrective action
Future OSW Environmental Indicators Proposed in OSWER's
1993-1996 Strategic Plan
Goal 1: Waste Minimization
• Continual reduction in the volume of hazardous and industrial
solid waste generated per capita
• Continual reduction in the toxicity of targeted waste streams
• Annual increases in the amount of municipal solid waste
recycled
• Annual reduction in the quantity of municipal solid waste
disposed of or sent to incinerators and landfills
• Annual increases by state in the amount of municipal solid
waste recycled
• Reduced volumes and toxicity of waste in industries targeted for
combined enforcement and permit activities
Goal 2: Environmentally Sound Management.
No environmental indicators proposed by OSW in the plan
-------
Goat 3: Prevent Harmful Releases
• The environmental damage resulting from these releases
declines over time
•
Goal 4: Prepare for and Respond to Hazardous Releases
No environmental indicators proposed by OSW in the plan.
-------
o
a
s
fi>
a
o
(A
-------
Office of Pesticides Programs
Reported Indicators
-------
Reported Indicator Data for Office of Pesticides
Program
The following two pages of charts reflect indicator data reported by OPP
for FY 90. At present this indicator has been deleted and commitment to
reporting data in future years is uncertain. Likewise dedication of funds
or FTEs to support future reporting of this indicator have yet to be made.
Six crops were chosen to track pesticide usage. The data source, which is
published annually, is the Pesticide Profile by Doane Marketing Research
Inc. for 1988 pesticides'usage. If tracked yearly, this information will then
be used to calculate a human exposure index and an ecological risk
index in future reports. The data charted for each of the six crops is
reported as the percentage of the crop treated (nationally) with any
pesticide used on greater than fifteen percent of that crop. This baseline
data could be compared against future years to allow a measure of
substitution of less risky pesticides over time.
-------
Pesticide Indicator Reported for the First Time in 1990
Percentage of Selected Crops on Which Pesticides are Used
Cotton
Citrus
Parathiort
Cypermethrin
Trifluralin
Chordimeform
Roumeturan
DSMA
Dicrotophos
• Esfenvalerate
Mepiquat Chloride
•Pendimethalin
Aldicarb
Norflurazon
Azinphos-Methyl
Dimethoate
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Diuron
Bromacil
G;/phosate
Ethion
Simazine
Copper Sulfate
Oil
Paraquat
Dicofol
Chlorpyrifos
Fenbutatin Oxide
Aldicarb
Copper Hydroxide
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Soybeans
Trifluralin
Metribuzin
Imazaquim
Bentazon
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch/January 1991
-------
Pesticide Indicator (Continued)
Percentage of Selected Crops on Which Pesticides are Used
Tomatoes
Potatoes
Corn
Maneb
Dithiocarbamates
Chlorothalonil
Methomyl
Permethrin
Azinphos-Methyl
Naprapamide
Methamidophos
Dithion
Copper Sulfate
Trifluralin
Fenvalerate
Copper Hydroxide
Bt. var Kurstaki
Peb'ulate
Paraquat
Metribuzin
Methyl Bromide
Esfenvalerate
Carbaryl
Maneb
Metribizin
Mancozeb
Dithiocarbamates
Methamidophos
Zineb
Aldicarb
Triphenyltin Hydroxide
Esfenvalerate
Phorate
Permthrin
.. Chlorothalni!
Metolachlor
EPIC
Carbofuran
Atrazine
Alachlor
Metolachlor
Cyanizine
Dicamba
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
10 20 30-40 50 60 70 80 90 100
10
20
30
40 50
60
70
80
90 100
Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch/January 1991
-------
Office of Toxic Substances
Reported Indicators
-------
OPTS/OTS Reported Indicators
OTS has no reported indicators at this time. They have an ATS
commitment to report on two indicators in 1992 (see "OTS Proposed
Indicators")
-------
Office of Pesticides Programs Proposed Indicators
1. Workgroup to develop environmental indicators pilot program.
September 1991.
Note:Reporting dates for the following indicators have not been
established
2. Pesticide Usage/Human and Ecological Risk Index.
3. Poisoning Incidence Reporting (human and ecological incidence).
4. Commodities Residue Levels.
5. Field Residue Monitoring of Environmental Matrices.
6. Pesticide container Reuse/Recycle.
7. Indoor Exposure to Pesticides.
8. Ecological Community Monitoring.
9. Ground Water .Quality Monitoring.
-------
Office of Toxic Substances Proposed Indicators
TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE INDEX
The Index is intended to reflect trends in industrial emissions of toxic
chemicals and their risks. It will be constructed from data on releases for
a large set of TRI chemicals. Release quantities will be adjusted by
factors which account for toxicity and exposure, and then combined into
national indices-one of human health risks and one of environmental
risks. The Index (indices) would be reported annually.
Difficult decisions lie ahead: which chemicals to use in the Index; how to
estimate and score exposures and toxicities; how to "index* the combined
release, toxicity and exposure scores.
The ATS schedule calls for construction of the Index by October 31, 1991,
testing (i.e. data reporting) and evaluation by December 31, 1991, and
further revisions as necessary one year later (December 31, 1992).
PCBs INDICATOR: AMOUNT OF PCBs TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE
COMPARED WITH AMOUNT PROPERLY DISPOSED OF
This indicator is intended to reflect the amount of PCBs that currently
pose unacceptable risk, i.e. the difference between the amount of PCBs in
leaking transformers ('taken out of service") and the amount of these that
no longer pose an unacceptable risk ("properly disposed of").
The ATS schedule calls for the first annual report on this indicator by
February 1992.
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
Pollution Prevention
-------
en
o>
ro
ro
t
o
ro
co
CD °-
I "5
h^ w
oo-g
^- CO
o
•-E
CO
O
2*
00 I
— o
i TB
i
o
-------
-------
Biodiversity and Habitat
-------
o
00
0>
m
•
0
o
+*
fl
o
IB
m
0)
9
(Q
•U
-------
£ $2
« £ Q
CO
O
= C
m
2; vw
• en CD i
t
-------
Great Lakes
-------
O
(0
(9
0)
(0
£
o
o>
o
o
£
73
a
o
«
2
* o
TIM
n
?i
I*1
|s
EM
*J
s
o»
X
£;»
if
o.S
11
•1
at
•5
2
.§
I
CO
«
Of
3. a
I 0>
to =|
S
•1
-------
-------