-------
OCLC Connexion
Page 1 of 1
OCLC 1141781300 Held by EHA - no other holdings
Rec stat n
Entered 20200225
Replaced 20200225
Type a
ELvl K
Srce d
Audn
Ctrl
Lang eng
BLvl m
Form
Conf 0
Biog
MRec
Ctry dcu
Cont
GPubf
LitF 0
Indx 0
Desc i
Ills ak
Fest 0
DtSt s
Dates 1989 ,
040
088
099
049
245 0 0
264 1
300
336
337
338
500
500
650
650
710 1
EHA #b eng *e rda *c EHA
EPA 233-R-89-001
EPA 233-R-89-001
EHAD
FY 1991 regional rankings of twenty environmental problems/ +C United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Management Systems arid Evaluation.
[Washington, DC]: *b Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Management Systems and
Evaluation, #c 1989.
1 volume (various pagings): *b tables, forms ; *c 28 cm
text *b txt +2 rdacontent
unmediated #b n +2 rdamedia
volume #b nc +2 rdacarrier
Cover title.
"April 1989."
Environmental policy *z United States.
Environmental auditing *z United States.
United States. *b Environmental Protection Agency. *b Office of Management Systems and
Evaluation. #e issuing body.
Delete Holdings- Export- Label- Submit- Replace- Report Error- Update Holdings-C Validate-C
Workflow-In Process
about:blank
2/25/2020
-------
Table of Contents
Page
INTRODUCTION
1
LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM AREAS
The "Agency Pie"
2
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK RANKING
3
BUDGET PRIORITY RANKING
9
PRIORITY ACTIVITIES FOR TOP RANKED PROBLEMS 14
Appendix A. Ranking Summaries for Problem Areas.
Appendix B. Ranking Summaries for Regions.
Appendix C. Budget Rankings with Related Activities.
Appendix D. Explanation of Calculations.
Appendix E. Call Letter for FY 1991 Regional Ranking.
FY 1991 Regional Ranking
CONCLUSION
18
-------
List of Tables
Page
Table 1. Regional Ranking Results - FY 1991 4
Table 2. Correlations Among Regional Rankings 7
Table 3. Correlations of Regions' Rankings
to National Ranking 7
Table 4. Budget Priorities - FY 1991 10
Table 5. Correlation of Top Five Environmental Problems
and Budget Priorities - By Region 12
Table 6. Allocation of FTE (FY 89) to
Top Budget Priorities 13
Table 7. Activities by Category . . .14
Table 8. Activities Listed by Category and Program Office . 15
Table 9. Activities Listed by Budget Priority Area ... 15
Table 10. Activities Listed by Category and Media Program . 17
-------
INTRODUCTION
For each of the past three years, EPA has requested and
analyzed Regions' assessments of the relative risks posed by our
nation's major environmental problems, in an effort to guide
planning for EPA's future work. These rankings and other
analyses are designed to direct Agency programs and budget
resources toward reducing risks to human and ecological health.
... In a memorandum dated January 19, 1989, each Region was
asked to involve senior managers in developing sequential
rankings of a list of 21 environmental problem areas, sometimes
called the "Agency Pie". The Deputy Administrator and the Office
of Management Systems and Evaluation received the Regions'
rankings in March.
Each Region ordered the problem areas based upon their risks
to human health and the environment. Some Regions developed
separate rankings of human health risk and ecological risk and
then combined them. Each Region also named activities needed for
addressing the top ten items in their list, and identified the
five areas where budget increases could be used most effectively.
Analysis to produce the rankings took various forms among
Regions. Best professional judgment necessarily played a large
role in each Region; supplemental quantitative information about
known risk levels and populations exposed provided further
guidance. Differences among rankings by Regions and changes from
last year to this year are noted in this report, along with the
numerical rankings. These characteristics of the raw data point
not only to the individuality of each Region but also to Regions'
differing perceptions of the risks posed by various environmental
problems.
The paramount aim of this ranking continues to be: to
improve EPA planning and budgeting to maximize risk reduction.
In March 1989 the Administrator announced his intention that EPA
develop long-term plans which will extend into FY 1995 and will
associate budget allocations with needs identified in these
plans. We expect the information from the FY 1991 ranking will
be instrumental in identifying budget priorities and key
activities.
We thank the Regions for participating in the ranking
project for the third year running. We anticipate that this
effort will benefit them in Agency planning and budgeting which
increasingly take into account the Regions' understanding of
environmental problems.
FY 1991 Regional Ranking
1
-------
LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM AREAS
The "Aaencv Pie"
The Regions were asked to rank the following list of 21
environmental problems/programs. The goal is that this list,
over time, will provide a relatively constant description of
mutually exclusive problem areas, and that it be used for
analyzing trends and for planning purposes. The list and
definitions were revised somewhat this year in cooperation with
the Headquarters program offices. The definitions used for the
problem areas are provided in the call letter in Appendix E. The
list used for the FY 1991 ranking is below.
NAAQS Groundwater
Air Toxics Public Drinking Water Management
Regional Air Quality Oceans
Global Air
Indoor Air
Radon
Radiation
Surface Water
(Streams/Rivers)
Near Coastal Waters
Lakes
Wetlands
Hazardous Waste Releases
Solid Waste Management
Hazardous Waste Management
Chemical Emergencies
Underground Storage Tanks
Exposure from Existing Pesticides
Exposure from Existing Chemicals
This list for FY 1991 differs slightly from the FY 1990 list
of environmental problem areas. Biotechnology, New Chemicals and
New Pesticides were dropped from last year's list, because these
programs are primarily Headquarters functions and thus not
appropriate for Regional ranking. Although ranked by most
Regions, Global Air was not included on the national aggregate
ranking, because currently, only Headquarters research and policy
staff have work related to Global Air. Finally, Radon was
separated from Indoor Air, because these problems require
different strategies and also fall under different statutes and
parts of EPA organization.
2
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK RANKING
Background
A major component of the FY 1991 Regional ranking effort was
the ranking of environmental problems of greatest import'ance to
the Regions. The Regions were asked to use "readily available
information and the best professional judgment of the Regional
staff* to assess the relative risks of each environmental
problem.
The analysis recognizes the current limitations (and some
recent efforts for improvement) of data, resources, and
methodology of Regional risk assessments. Over the past year,
Regions I, III, and X have undertaken comparative risk analyses
to sharpen their Regional priorities. Working with them, the
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation developed some
techniques which proved useful in assuring a more systematic
consideration of factors where there is widely varying quality of
information. The Regions also received more thorough guidance
than in previous years' ranking exercises, and OPPE staff visited
Regions VI and II to discuss analytical approaches.
The Aggregate Ranking
The risk ranking results are provided in Table 1, ."Regional
Ranking Results - FY 1991". The problems are listed in the left
column in the order of their average ranking. The spreadsheet
shows how each Region ranked each problem and also provides data
on the number of top five and top ten ranks, the ranges, and a
measure of consistency for each problem area.
Compared to the FY 1990 ranking, the Regions agree less on
which problem areas belong in the top ten of the national
aggregate ranking. Last year, each of the top ten problem areas
received a rank above ten from seven or more Regions; this year,
only four.
Top Ten Problems
The problems that emerged
average rank ten or above are:
1. NAAQS
2. Existing Pesticides
3. Groundwater
4. Air Toxics
5. Near Coastal Waters
from the aggregate ranking with an
6. Wetlands
7. Radon
8. Surface Water
9. Hazardous Waste Releases
10. Existing Chemicals
All of these problem areas but two, Exposure to Existing
Pesticides and Exposure to Existing Chemicals, were also in the
top ten of the FY 1990 ranking. Likewise, two other areas,
FY 1991 Regional Ranking
3
-------
Table 1. Regional Ranking Results - FY 1991.
AGGREGATE PROBLEM R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 AVERAGE TOP 5 TOP 10 HIGH LOL, RANGE VARIABILITY
RANK (0-50)
1
NAAQS
1
7
2
5
6
3
10
1
1
2
3.8
7
10
1
10
9
42
2
EXISTING PESTICIDES
9
9
8
1
7
2
8
11
6
1
6.2
3
9
1
11
10
37
J
GROUNDWATER
5
8
10
11
3
11
1
5
5
6
6.5
5
8
1
11
10
39
4
AIR TOXICS
11
4
15
9
2
7
4
8
3
8
7.1
4
8
2
15
13
41
5
NEAR COASTAL UATERS
10
2
3
16
5
6
10
7
7.4
3
7
2
16
14
21
6
WETLANDS
8
3
6
14
10
5
2
15
8
5
7.6
4
8
2
15
13
33
7
RADON
7
17
7
6
1
17
14
2
2
4
7.7
4
7
1
17
16
24
8
SURFACE WATER
3
6
4
13
14
4
6
7
14
9
8.0
3
7
3
14
11
32
9
HAZ WASTE RELEASES
16
11
12
3
8
1
11
6
11
13
9.2
2
4
1
13
12
32
10
EXISTING CHEMICALS
6
14
17
2
4
10
3
12
15
12
9.5
3
5
2
17
15
25
11
INDOOR AIR
15
18
5
4
13
19
7
10
12
3
10.6
3
4
3
19
16
26
12
DRINKING WATER MGT
12
19
9
20
12
9
12
3
4
11
11.1
2
4
3
20
17
34
13
REGIONAL AIR QUALITY
2
1
1
8
17
13
16
17
18
20
11.3
3
4
1
20
19
20
14
CHEMICAL EMERGENCIES
4
20
18
19
4
8
17
4
13
10
11.7
3
4
4
20
16
21
15
HAZARDOUS WASTE MGT
18
12
14
12
11
12
9
9
7
15
11.9
0
3
7
15
8
37
16
LAKES
17
5
13
10
16
15
13
20
14
13.7
1
1
5
20
15
38
17
SOLID WASTE MGT
19
13
19
17
9
18
5
13
9
18
14.0
1
3
5
19
14
26
18
USTs
13
16
16
7
15
20
15
14
• 16
16
14.8
0
1
7
20
13
42
19
OCEANS
14
10
20
18
19
14
17
17
16.1
0
1
10
20
10
35
20
RADIATION
20
15
11
15
18
16
18
16
19
19
16.7
0
0
11
19
8
30
Notes:
- A blank cell indicates that the Region did not rank the environmental problem.
• Global air is not included in the national aggregate ranking because several Regions did not rank it.
- The variability in the last column is an indicator of how consistent individual Regions' rankings were with the aggregate ranking.
In general, a higher number means more consistency. Algorithm for variability number is shown in Appendix D.
-------
Public Drinking Water Management and Hazardous Waste Management,
ranked in the top ten of the FY 1990 ranking but were ranked
lower in the most recent ranking.
Agreement among the Regions
The ranges of rankings reflect the extent to which the
Regions hold differing views of the problem areas. Sixteen of
the 20 problems received at least one rank in the top five while
19 received a top ten rank. (Only Radiation did not receive at
least one rank in the top ten.) Again, these results show a
somewhat wider variation than in the FY 1990 ranking; then, 14 of
the 20 problems received at least one rank in the top five.
The ranking variability column in Table 1 offers a measure
of how consistent individual Regional rankings were with the
national aggregate ranking. (Appendix D explains the method used
to indicate consistency.) Among the top ten problems, Regions
were most consistent in their views of:
NAAQS
Air Toxics
Groundwater
...And least consistent in their views of:
Exposure to Existing Chemicals
Radon
Near Coastal Waters
As might be expected-, the highest- and lowest-ranked
problems had relatively more consistent rankings than the
middle-ranked problems. For most problems, at least one Region
differed substantially from the aggregate national ranking.
At least some of the Regional differences can be explained.
For example, Region I, II, and Ill's problems with transport of
urban air pollution are the basis for their high rankings of
Regional Air Quality and Region V's interest in the Great Lakes
raised Near Coastal Waters in both their risk and budget
rankings.
Cross-Media Considerations
Related to the high risk problems and to the list in
general, the importance of cross-media impacts is evident.
Several of the top-ranked problems are endpoints for a number of
sources of contamination. Groundwater is the clearest example.
Though groundwater is ranked third overall, some major threats to
groundwater (e.g., USTs, pesticides) are ranked much lower.
Abating groundwater pollution will require emphasizing problems
which by themselves were not considered as critical.
FY 1991 Regional Ranking
5
-------
This kind of overlap in the list of environmental problem
areas arises from the difficulty in making a comprehensive list
that helps EPA address its work strategically. We will continue
to fine-tune the list as our ability to set priorities improves.
Differences Among Regions
The tables on the following page provide some analysis of
the comparison of the Regions' rankings to each other. Not
surprisingly, each Region has many priorities which are not
ranked highly by all Regions. In addition each Region has some
priorities congruent with the aggregate ranking.
Table 2, "Correlations Among Regional Rankings", relates the
individual Regional rankings to the aggregate national ranking.
The analysis compares rankings using least squares (r' value).
The correlation coefficients at the bottom of the table may be
the best measure for assessing how much each Region agrees with
the national aggregate ranking. Three Regions showed a fairly
positive correlation to the national ranking, with correlations
over +0.7. Region X showed the highest correlation at +0.8.
Regions II and IV showed the weakest correlation (+0.41 and
+0.42, respectively). (Appendix 0 explains the least squares
algorithm.)
Table 2 also compares each Region to every other Region.
These correlation coefficients are much lower than the
correlation to the single national average. For example, Region
II has, on average, a correlation of only +0.09 with the nine
other Regions. No Region has an average correlation of greater
than +0.37. The strongest relationship between any two Regions
is between Regions V and IX (+0.72), while the weakest is between
Regions II and VIII (-0.41).
Table 3, "Correlation of Regions' Rankings to National
Ranking", presents how many of each Region's risk priorities
appeared in the top five and top ten of the national aggregate
rankings. For most Regions, only two of their top five risk
priorities appear in the top five of the national aggregate
ranking. When the top ten risk priorities are considered, most
Regions have at least seven of their top ten choices in the top
ten of the national aggregate ranking.
6
-------
TABLE 2. CORRELATIONS AMONG REGIONAL RANKNGS.
LEAST SQUARES r'
REGION
R1
A
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
1
2
1
0.28
1
3
0.42
0.36
1
4
0.18
0.08
0.18
1
5
0.41
0.00
-0.04
0.27
1
6
0.44
0.42
0.27
0.12
0.40
1
7
0.15
0.14
-0.06
0.31
0.42
0.22
1
8
0.39
0.41
0.07
0.16
0.59
0.31
0.32
1
9
0.26
0.03
0.18
0.11
0.72
0.37
0.42
0.71
10
0.34
0.07
0.37
0.23
0.50
0.32
0.27
0.36
AVE
0.32
0.09
0.19
0.18
0.36
0.32
0.24
0.28
NATL
0.61
0.41
0.52
0.42
0.71
0.68
0.48
0.47
R9
1
0.60
0.37
R10
1
0.33
0.80
REGIONAL SIMILARITY TO
NATIONAL AVERAGE RANKING
IV V VI VI VI IX X
REGIONS
TABLE 3. CORRELATION OF REGIONS' RANKNGS TO NATIONAL RANKING.
PERCENT OF PHORTflES N COMMON
TOP 5
R1 R2 R3 R4 RS R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
40* 40* 40* 40* 60* 40* 40* 40* 60* 40%
TOP 10 80* 70* 60* 60* 90* 80* 70* 60* 70* 80%
Correlation by tha least squares method provides a statistic to
compare one Region's ranking to other rankings, as one measure of
Regional variabity. A one (1.0) indcates perfect correlation;
zero (0.0). no correlation; negative one (-1.0), perfect inverse
correlation.
Regions 5.6.9, and 10 rankings had the highest correlation to
the national average and to each other Region. Region 2 s
ranking showed the least correlation. In general a correlation
of 0.7 or greater was deemed strong.
Data dsparities In the original ranking spreadsheet were
elminated to accommodate least squares analysis. For example.
Region 7*8 nonraridngs of Near Coastal Waters and Oceans were
both numbered 19.5.
FY 1991 Regional Ranking
7
-------
Environmental Problems Added bv the Regions
Some Regions made special mention of problems which were not
included in the List of Environmental Problem Areas. They are:
Physical Modification of Terrestrial Habitats
(ranked #13 for risk)
U.S./Mexican Border (ranked #1 for budget)
Indian Lands (ranked #2 for budget)
Indian Lands (ranked #17 for risk)
Pollution prevention (ranked #6 for budget)
Agricultural Drainage (no ranks)
Mexican Border Issues
Outer Continental Shelf Issues
Loss of Agricultural Lands
Endangered Species
Dredge Material Disposal
Proposition 65
Pollution Prevention
Non-Chemical Degradation of Terrestrial
Habitats (ranked #10 for risk)
Private Drinking Water (ranked #12 for risk)
A number of these problem areas could logically be included
and ranked in the existing list. For example, although Indian
Lands have problems in many areas such as Surface Water and Solid
Waste Management, the solutions to environmental problems on
Indian Lands often demand very special strategies. Similarly,
U.S./Mexican Border issues mentioned by Regions VI and IX,
involve Surface Water and Regional Air Quality problems. One way
to respond to the importance of these matters in the Regions
could be to add them to the basic list of environmental problems.
Region III
Region VI
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
8
-------
BUDGET PRIORITY RANKING
Results
Each Region was asked to identify five environmental problem
areas where they would increase the budget first if additional
resources were available. Table 4, "Budget Priorities - Fy
1991", shows the budget priorities the Regions named.
The aggregate budget priority list was developed by counting
tha number of Regions naming the environmental problem as a
budget priority, regardless of the ordering the Region gave.
Thus, Solid Waste Management ranks among the top two of the
aggregate budget priorities even though it is listed as a first
budget priority by only one Region, and as a fourth or fifth
budget priority by four of the six Regions. Those areas
appearing on the most Regions' budget lists are shown below.
The list is virtually unchanged from FY 1990, except for the
strong addition of Solid waste Management. In both years, at
least five Regions listed Radon, Indoor Air, Groundwater, Air
Toxics and Wetlands among their top budget priorities.
FY 1991 Budget Priorities
1. Solid Waste Management (6)
2. Radon (6)
3. Indoor Air (5)
4. Groundwater (5)
5. Air Toxics (5)
6. Wetlands (5)
FY 1990 Budget Priorities
1. Indoor Air/Radon (7)
2. Groundwater (5)
3. Air Toxics (5)
4. Drinking Water Mgt (5)
5. Wetlands (5)
In addition to these top six, twelve environmental problem
areas were identified as budget priorities by fewer than half of
the Regions. Existing Pesticides and Public Drinking Water
Management were named by four Regions; Near Coastal Waters by
three Regions; NAAQS and Regional Air Quality by two Regions.
Seven other problem areas were identified as budget
priorities by single Regions. Some of these, like Global Air,
Pollution Prevention, Indian Lands, and US/Mexico Border, were
additions to the original list of problem areas.
Budget Priorities Bv Media
The top six aggregate budget priorities fall mainly under
the purview of three EPA Assistant Administrators: Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Air and Radiation,
and Office of Water. As mentioned above, Solid Waste Management,
under OSWER, was named by six Regions as a budget priority.
Among those six, Regions I, II, V, and IX include several of the
largest metropolitan areas and solid waste generators in the
nation.
FY 1991 Regional Ranking
9
-------
Table 4. Budget Priorities - FY 1991.
# TIMES
AGGREGATE PROBLEM R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 NAMED
RISK RANK
7 RADON 5 4 5 2 2 1 6
17 SOLID WASTE MGT 4 1 4 4 5 2 6
11 INDOOR AIR 13 5 2 15
4 AIR TOXICS 2 5 2 3 3 5
3 GROUNDWATER 3 5 14 4 5
6 WETLANDS 4 3 4 2 5 5
2 EXISTING PESTICIDES 1 3 13 4
12 DRINKING WATER MGT 4 3 3 4 4
5 NEAR COASTAL WATERS 13 1 3
1 NAAQS 2 1 2
13 REGIONAL AIR QUALITY 5 2 2
US/MEXICO BORDER 1
9 HAZ WASTE RELEASES 2
INDIAN LANDS 2
8 SURFACE WATER 5
15 HAZARDOUS WASTE MGT 5
GLOBAL AIR 6
POLLUTION PREVENTION 6
10 EXISTING CHEMICALS 0
14 CHEMICAL EMERGENCIES 0
16 LAKES 0
18 USTs 0
19 OCEANS 0
20 RADIATION 0
The column on the right side "# TIMES NAMED" is simply a count of those Regions identifying that environmental problem as a
budget priority.
-------
Under OAR, Radon was also named by six Regions, including
those Regions where Radon has been found widespread. Air Toxics
was named by five Regions, including Regions II, V, and IX, which
are responsible for controlling air pollution in some of our
largest cities. Indoor Air was named by five Regions, but not by
those Regions with the largest metropolitan areas.
Among the two top aggregate budget priorities with
implications for OW, Groundwater was listed by five Regions as a
budget priority, including Regions VI, VII, and VIII, the Regions
with the largest underground aquifers. Wetlands is a budget
priority in five Regions spanning several different ecoregions,
from Regions III and X on the coasts, to Regions V, VI, and VII
in the middle of the continental land mass.
Correlation Between Environmental and Budget Priorities
Some correlation exists between the aggregate budget ranking
and the aggregate environmental problem ranking. Groundwater and
Air Toxics appear among both the top five aggregate environmental
problem areas and the top six aggregate budget priorities. Seven
of the top ten environmental problem areas appear among the top
ten budget priorities.
Managers in six Regions would increase funding for Solid
Waste Management, despite its relatively low place. (#17) in the
aggregate risk ranking. This may reflect that priorities are
also influenced by concerns other than risk, for example, public
perception and impact on the U.S. way of life. Region II cited
the need for additional funding for Solid Waste Management due to
the "crisis proportion" of this problem in its Region. Surface
Water and Hazardous Waste Releases are listed by only one Region
each as a budget priority even though they appear in the top ten
on the aggregate environmental problem ranking.
All Regions named some of their top ten problems as budget
priorities also. Table 5, "Correlation of Top Five Environmental
Problems and Budget Priorities - By Region", relates each
Region's top five environmental problem areas to its top five
budget priorities. Six Regions ranked at least three of their
own top environmental problems among their top budget priorities
also. Radon and Air Toxics are listed most often on both lists,
by four Regions.
FY 1991 Regional Ranking
11
-------
Table 5. Correlation of Top Five Environmental Problems and
Budget Priorities - By Region.
Region Problem Areas among Top Five on Both Lists
_ V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
I
II
III
IV
NAAQS, Groundwater, Regional Air Quality
Air Toxics, Near Coastal Waters
Indoor Air, Regional Air Quality
Existing Pesticides, Hazardous Waste Releases,
Indoor Air
Near Coastal Waters, Radon, Air Toxics
Wetlands
Indoor Air, Groundwater
NAAQS, Radon, Drinking Water Mgt., Groundwater
Radon, Air Toxics, Drinking Water Mgt.
Indoor Air, Radon, Existing Pesticides, Wetlands
Implications for the Budget
Regions have called for more funding for cross-cutting
problems, but not for the EPA programs which now exist to address
the media-specific sources. For example, Groundwater and
Wetlands are listed by five or more Regions as a budget priority,
while Hazardous Waste Management and Surface Water, which can
affect these media, are not ranked high on the aggregate budget
priority list. Solid Waste Management, which was listed as a
high budget priority, can also affect these two environmental
problems. These seeming inconsistencies may reflect general
frustration with EPA's ability to protect Groundwater and
Wetlands holistically, or simply a need to find and fund
additional tactics in that effort.
A small increase in funding for the environmental problems
listed as the top six aggregate budget priorities might have a
large marginal impact on reducing risk to human health and the
environment. The top six items on the aggregate budget priority
list account for a relatively small part of the total EPA budget.
Table 6, "Allocation of FTE to Top Budget Priorities", shows the
level of FTE allocated to these areas in FY 1989. Taken together
they account for 501 Agency FTE, only 3.4% of the total 14,572
Agency FTE. In the Regions, these top six budget priorities
account for 206 FTE, 3.0% of the total 6,846 Regional FTE.
12
-------
Table 6. Allocation of FTE (FY 89) to Top Budget Priorities.
Budaet Prioritv
HQ FTE
Reaional
FTE
Total
FTE
Solid Waste Mgmt
29
20
49
Radon
53
17
70
Indoor Air
22
— •-
22
Groundwater
63
52
115
Air Toxics
150
36
186
Wetlands
23
81
104
Total
340
(4.5%)
206
(3.0%)
546
(3.7%)
Total FTE 7
,726
(100%)
6,846
(1000%)
14,572
(100%)
Source: EPA FY 1990
OMB
Budget Request
Thus, these programs are relatively small compared to EPA
programs for addressing some of the other problem areas which
appeared on the budget priority listings only once: Surface
Water, Hazardous Waste Management, and Hazardous Waste Releases.
Funding these at significantly higher levels would require much
larger absolute increases.
In conclusion, making a finite addition to resources for
Groundwater and Air Toxics would likely have the largest marginal
effect on reducing risk to human health and the environment as a
whole. These two areas were listed among both the top five
aggregate environmental problems and the top six aggregate budget
priorities, and their current resources amount to 88 Regional FTE
now, just over 1% of the Regional FTE. Furthermore, Regions have
called for additional help in addressing Solid Waste Management,
Radon and Indoor Air, and Wetlands.
FY 1991 Regional Ranking
13
-------
PRIORITY ACTIVITIES FOR TOP RANKED PRORT.KMS
In an effort to make the Regional ranking exercise as useful
as possible, Regions were asked to offer information about the
specific work needed to address priority problems. For the FY
1991 ranking, Regions identified important activities, at both
Headquarters and Regions, for each of their top ten environmental
problem areas. Appendix C contains the activities submitted by
the Regions for each of their budget priorities.
The response to this part of the ranking differed this year
from the FY 1990 effort. Last year Regions identified a wide
range of activities and strategies for tackling each problem;
this year, Regions for the most part simply assigned to each
problem, activities from the examples given in the call letter.
In both years the lists of activities seemed to represent heavily
the responsibilities of Headquarters to develop regulations and
implementation guidance.
Table 7, "Activities by Category", shows most of the
activities called for by Regions, categorized by general type. A
tally of the frequency with which activities in these categories
were mentioned shows that Planning activities were mentioned most
often (30 times); Regulatory Development followed with 25;
Compliance and Enforcement, and Implementation were even with 20;
Research and Design followed closely with 19; and Grants were
mentioned nine times.
Table 7. Activities by Category.
Code Category
Plan Planning
Regs Regulatory
Development
Impl Implementation
Representative Activities
problem assessment, planning and
strategy development
state regulations, program
development
training, program activities,
permitting, public awareness and
education
Enf Compliance and
Enforcement
inspections
Desn Research and
Design
studies, surveys, technology
transfer and development
Grant Jrants
State grants
14
-------
Table 8, "Activities Listed by Category and by Program
Office", shows a breakdown of activities listed for each problem
area by EPA program office, while Table 9, "Activities with
Categories and Frequencies by Budget Priority Area", sorts the
information for activities mentioned by frequency. The rightmost
column shows, for each budget priority, the categories of
activities the Regions mentioned most frequently. Compliance and
Enforcement, and Planning were the most frequently mentioned
activities each for five different problem areas.
Table 8. Activities Listed by Category and by Progran office.
Reqs
Impl
Enf
Desn
Grant
Total
OAR
18
12
5
5
9
5
54
OW
9
7
13
11
5
3
48
OSWER
2
3
1
0
4
1
11
OPTS
1
3
1
4
1
0
10
Total
30
25
20
20
19
9
123
Table 9. Activities Listed by Budget Priority Area.
Budget #
Priority Area
of Activities
Listed
Radon (6) 18
Groundwater (5) 16
Indoor Air (5) 15
Wetlands (5) 12
Air Toxics (5) 11
Pesticides (4) 10
Solid Waste (6) 9
Drinking Water (4) 8
Near Coastal Water (3) 7
NAAQS (2) 6
Surface Water (1) 5
Regional Air Quality (2) 4
Haz. Waste Releases (1) 2
Haz. Waste Management (1) 0
Category of Activity
Listed Most Often
Planning
Implementation
Planning
Enforcement, Planning
Enforcement, Reg Development
Enforcement
Regulation Development
Enforcement, Reg Devt, Grants
Compliance, Implementation
Planning, Grants
Planning
Regulation Development
Research and Design
none
Numbers following the budget priority areas indicate the number
of times that problem area was mentioned by the Regions as a
budget priority.
FY 1991 Regional Ranking
15
-------
As mentioned above, Regions used their activities lists to
make the point that Headquarters work is needed to help them
address top environmental problems. This phenomenon suggests
that Regional work depends heavily on Headquarters for central
guidance, policy and especially Federal regulations.
Headquarters offices may choose to use this ranking as a guide to
the most important work in various areas. Below is a further
discussion of the Regional submittal of needed activities.
Planning: The two problem areas where Regions called most for
Planning, were Indoor Air and Surface Water. Planning also
appeared with NAAQS, Wetlands, and Radon. Under several problem
areas, including Drinking Water and Hazardous Waste Releases no
Planning activities were mentioned.
Regulatory Development: For four problem areas, Regions
mentioned Regulatory Development activities most frequently:
Air Toxics, Solid Waste, Regional Air Quality, and Drinking
Water. Many Regional responses emphasized State Regulation
Development as a subset of all Regulatory Development activity.
Implementation: Under Groundwater, Regions listed Implementation
overwhelmingly as the most frequent activity type, with seven
instances. This strong response may be due to the status of the
program; although adequate regulation exists, implementation has
been slowed due to lack of funding.
Compliance and Enforcement: Compliance and Enforcement was
ranked most highly under Wetlands, Air Toxics, and Pesticides.
Near Coastal Waters and Drinking Water also show Compliance and
Enforcement as their most frequently mentioned activity.
Research and Design: In general, the Regions have not sent a
strong mandate for Research and Design work. Region IV listed
Hazardous Waste Releases with a need for technology development
and for research. Research needs were also briefly mentioned in
connection with Indoor Air and Radon. Perhaps the Regions' more
immediate point of view leads them to call for regulations and
guidance, even though those products certainly depend on
research.
Grants: Only NAAQS and Drinking Water show Grants as their most
frequently mentioned activity. This response points to the
dependence of these programs on grant allocations under Section
105 of the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act,
respectively.
Table 10, "Priority Activities Identified by Regions by
Categories and Environmental Problem Areas", shows the
distribution of activities upon which Regions would spend
additional funds, if available. Given the activities mentioned
by the Regions for their budget priorities, the Office of Air
16
-------
and Radiation would appear to be most likely to spend additional
funds primarily on Planning and Regulatory Development. The
Office of Water might concentrate on Implementation and
Compliance and Enforcement activities.
OSWER and OPTS have fewer responses from which to infer a
trend. However, for OSWER, Research and Design and Regulatory
Development and, for OPTS, Regulatory Development and Compliance
and Enforcement appear to be most likely candidates for
supplemental funding.
Table 10. Activities Listed by Category and Media Program.
Plan Reas Imol Enf Desn Grant Total
OAR
Air Toxics
1
4
1
4
1
11
Indoor Air
8
1
1
4
1
15
NAAQS
2
1
1
2
6
Radon
6
4
2
4
2
18
Regional Air Quality 1
2
1
4
OPTS
Existing Pesticides
1
3
1
4
1
10
OSWER
Haz. Waste Releases
2
2
Solid Waste Mgmt.
2
3
1
2
1
9
ow
Drinking Water
2
1
2
1
2
8
Groundwater
2
2
7
2
2
1
16
Near Coastal Waters
1
1
2
2
1
7
Surface Water
2
1
1
1
5
Wetlands
4
1
3
4
12
FY 1991 Regional Ranking
17
-------
CONCLUSION
In this third annual Regional Ranking exercise, EPA Regional
Offices provided three analyses related to setting priorities for
the Environmental Protection Agency. The first analysis
identified problem areas which pose the greatest risks to human
health and the environment. The most notable change from the
previous year was the sudden rise of Existing Pesticides as an
area of concern.
Regions also identified program areas most susceptible to
incremental improvement as a result of budget increases. Highest
on this list were: protection of Groundwater and Wetlands,
solutions to problems presented by Air Toxics and by Radon and
Indoor Air, and management of Solid Waste. Thirdly, Regions
identified activities needed most for addressing these problems.
Faced with choices of how to fund programs to maximize risk
reduction given limited resources, managers may refer to the
Regions' ranking for some guidance. In the aggregate, Regions
have indicated that the Indoor Air and Radon programs would
benefit from more planning and regulation development; that the
Groundwater program could use funds aimed at Headquarters policy
as well as Regional implementation and especially at control of
Existing Pesticides; and that Wetlands needs money for planning,
implementation and enforcement. Regions also expressed concern
about the burgeoning need for effectiveness in EPA's work on
Solid Waste Management.
In conclusion, the Regional ranking exercise once again
poses the challenge to Headquarters managers to reconcile a
diversity of Regional interests with overall national concerns.
The overall results of the FY 1991 Regional Ranking differ only
slightly from the ranking Regions gave in FY 1990. After
examining specifics of this report, managers may choose to
increase funding for certain aspects of EPA programs at
Headquarters and in Regions.
18
-------
FY 1991 Regional Rankings of
Environmental Problems
Appendix A. Ranking Summaries For Problem Areas.
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKING
1 NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
K1SK BUDGET NON-ATTAINMENT
REGION RANK PRIORITIES AREAS
I
1
2
75
9%
II
7
74
8%
III
2
99
12%
IV
5
76
9%
V
6
244
29%
VI
3
43
5%
VII
10
41
5%
VIII
1
1
52
6%
IX
1
110
13%
X
2
38
4%
o This area includes health and ecological
problems arising from six major air
pollutants. NAAQS pollutants play
several roles in air pollution; for
example. S02 and NOx emissions
cause acid deposition. Control
of NAAQS pollutants, especially
ozone, concomitantly reduces air
toxics emissions.
o NAAQS pollution generally appears in
highest concentrations in metropofitan
areas. OAR estimates that 102 mlon
persons live in areas with air quality below
the legal standard for one or more
NAAQS pollutant.
o The main legal vehicles for controing
NAAQS polutants are State
Implementation Plans.
o This problem area was ranked #2
in the FY 90 ranking. Five Regions
moved NAAQS to a higher priority this
year two Regions lowered their scores.
Every Region put NAAQS in the top
ten.
ABSOLUTE RANK IN 20 PROBLEMS: 1
AVERAGE: 3.0
RANGE: 1 TO 10
§ RANKING THIS IN TOP FIVE: 7
IN TOP TEN: 10
ASKING FOR MORE BUDGET: 2
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKING
2 EXPOSURE TO EXISTING PESTICIDES
RISK BUDGET
REGION RANK PRIORITIES
I
9
II
9
III
8
IV
1
1
V
7
VI
2
VII
8
3
VIII
11
IX
6
1
X
1
3
o Exposure to Existing Pesticides was
ranked much higher in the FY 1991
ranking than in the FY 1990 ranking.
It moved up from #12 to #2. This
year, nine Regions ranked it In the
top ten of their rankings compared to
five last year.
o Four Regions identified this problem
area as a budget priority. In the
FY 1990 ranking, only one Region
cited it as a budget priority.
o Six Regions named enforcement/
inspections as a high priority
activity. Others identified were state
regulation, grants, and technology
transfer/assistance.
ABSOLUTE RANK IN 20 PROBLEMS: 2
AVERAGE: 6.2
RANGE: 1 TO 11
# RANKING THIS IN TOP FIVE: 3
IN TOP TEN: 9
ASKING FOR MORE BUDGET: 4
-------
REGIONAL ENVRONMENTAi. PROBLEM RANKING
3 GROUNDWATER
RISK BUDGET
REGION RANK PRIORITIES
I
5
3
II
8
III
10
IV
11
V
3
VI
11
5
vn
1
1
VIII
5
4
IX
5
X
6
4
ABSOLUTE RANK IN 20 PROBLEMS: 3
AVERAGE : 6.5
RANGE: 1 TO 11
¦# RANKING THIS IN TOP FIVE: 5
IN TOP TEN: 8
ASKING FOR MORE BUDGET: 5
o Groundwater ranked third in the national
aggregate ranking. Five Regions rarked it
among their top five environmental problems.
o Of those Regions cithg highest priority activities
for Groundwater, four named strategy
development and three named enforcement.
o Groundwater is one of six environmental problems
which at least five Regions named aa a budget
priority. In the FY 1980 ranking. Groundwater
was also one of the most frequently named
budget priorities.
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKNG
4 AIR TOXICS
RISK BUDGET
REGION RANK PRIORITIES
I
11
II
4
2
III
15
IV
9
5
V
2
2
VI
7
3
VII
4
VIII
8
IX
3
3
X
8
ABSOLUTE RANK IN 20 PROBLEMS: 4
AVERAGE: 7.1
RANGE: 2 TO 15
# RANKING THIS IN TOP FIVE: 4
IN TOP TEN: 8
ASKING FOR MORE BUDGET: 5
o Despite several shifts by ind vidual Regions,
this problem area remains the #4 rarking
it received last year. Five Regions also
named Air Toxics as a budget priority.
o Most U.S. efforts to control Air Toxics
drectly are the work of State and
local governments. So far, EPA has
provided coordnating Auctions and
set national emissions standards
forafewpolutants. h 1989. new
legislation may better define the
federal approach to this problem.
o h FY 1988. States reported that 1.013
FTE are allocated to air toxics work.
EPA contributes approximately $10M
in grants for State air toxics programs
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKING
5 NEAR COASTAL WATERS
RISK BUDGET
REGION RANK PRIORITIES
I
10
1
II
2
3
III
3
IV
16
V
5
1
VI
6
VII
NO RANK
VIII
NO RANK
IX
10
X
7
ABSOLUTE RANK IN 20 PROBLEMS: 5
AVERAGE: 7.4
RANGE: 2 TO 16
# RANKING THIS IN TOP FIVE: 3
IN.TOP TEN: 7
ASKING FOR MORE BUDGET: 3
o Near Coastal Waters ranked somewhat
higher in this year's ranking (fifth) than in
the FY 1990 ranking (eighth). Three
Regions ranked Near Coastal Waters in
their top five concerns. Retfons
I and II are concerned about local
estuaries and Atlantic Ocean waters,
while Region V is concerned about the
Great Lakes.
o Three Regions ranked Near Coastal Waters
among their top budget concerns, with
Regions I and V ranking it as their top
budget priority for FY 1991.
o Seven Regions ranked Near Coastal Waters
among their top ten environmental problem
areas. They cite a variety of activities
needed to address the problem; the most
frequently named activity to enforcement
followed by problem assessment,
planning/strategy development technology
development and transfer, and state
regulation.
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKING
6 WETLANDS
RISK BUDGET
REGION RANK PRIORITIES
I
8
II
3
III
6
4
IV
14
V
10
3
VI
5
4
VII
2
2
VIII
15
IX
8
X
5
5
ABSOLUTE RANK IN 20 PROBLEMS: 6
AVERAGE: 7.6
RANGE: 2 TO 15
# RANKING THIS IN TOP FIVE: 4
IN TOP TEN: 8
ASKING FOR MORE BUDGET: 5
o Wetlands was rarked among the top five
environmental problems by four Regions.
Wetlands was rarked highest by Region VI,
which ranked the problem area second.
o Not surprisingly, of the five Regions submitting
separate ecological and human health rankings,
all ranked Wetlands much higher as an
ecological problem. Region X rarked
Wetlands its top ecological problem, and
Regions VI and VII ranked It second.
o Wetlands is one of six problem areas named
by five or more Regions as a budget priority.
Wetlands was one of the top budget priorities
in the FY 1990 ranking as wefl.
o Seven Regions identified enforcement as a high
priority activity related to Wetlands.
Five Regions identified planning/strategy
development and problem assessment.
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKING
7 RADON
RISK BUDGET
REGION RANK PRIORITIES
I
7
II
17
III
7
5
IV
6
4
V
1
5
VI
17
VII
14
VIII
2
2
IX
2
2
X
4
1
ABSOLUTE RANK IN 20 PROBLEMS: 7
AVERAGE: 7.7
RANGE: 1 TO 17
# RANKING THIS IN TOP FIVE: 4
IN TOP TEN: 7
ASKING FOR MORE BUDGET: 6
o Six Regions agreed that Radon could benefit
directly from increased resources. Radon
thus appeared at the top of the aggregated
budget priorities Est.
o Radon gas in buildings, mostly basements, poses
one of the most widespread threats to human
health of all areas of trie Agency pie.
Region V ranked Radon #1 based on risk.
EPA estimates that 20.000 lung cancer
deaths a year (about 136,000 people (fed
of lung cancer in 1987) may be attributed to
Radon.
o Law passed h 1986 requires EPA to conduct a
national survey to determine the extent of the
Radon problem, and to research measurement
and mitigation techniques. In October 1988,
Congress also authorized fundng and
assistance for State radon programs, and
drected EPA to survey schools for Radon.
o In the 1990 Regional ranking Radon and Indoor
Air were ranked together, in aggregate at
«6. This year Radon was ranted separately
and fell only one notch to #7.
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKING
8 SURFACE WATER
RISK BUDGET
REGION RANK PRIORITIES
I
3
II
6
III
4
IV
13
V
14
VI
4
VII
6
VIII
7
IX
14
X
9
ABSOLUTE RANK IN 20 PROBLEMS: 8
AVERAGE: 8.0
RANGE: 3 TO 14
# RANKING THIS IN TOP FIVE: 3
IN TOP TEN: 7
ASKING FOR MORE BUDGET: ONE
o Surface Water maintained its relative
position on the national aggregate
rarking in both FY 1990 and FY 1991.
o Three Regions (HI and VI) ranked this
problem area as one of their top
five concerns. Only one Region
named it as a budget priority.
o Three Northeastern Regions rarked
Surface Water above Groundwater
as an environmental concern, and
four Western Regions rarked
Surface Water below Groundwater.
o Only one Region cited problem assessment
as a priority activity to address
the Surface Water problem. Most
Regions proposed state regulations,
permits, and enforcement as their
highest priority activities.
o Of the five Regions submitting separate
ecological and human health rankings,
an but one placed Surface Water higher
on the ecological risk ranking than
on the human health risk rarking.
Region I ranked it first on its ecological
survey.
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKING
FY 1991
9 HAZARDOUS WASTE RELEASES
RISK BUDGET
REGION RANK PRIORITIES
I
16
II
11
III
12
IV
3
V
8
VI
1
VII
11
VIII
6
IX
11
X
13
o Hazardous Waste Releases was ranked in
top ten by four Regions, inducing Region
VI which ranked this problem area as
their top priority. In the FY 1990
national aggregate ranking, Hazardous
Waste Releases ranked third.
o Hazardous Waste Releases was ranked as
a budget priority by only one Region (IV);
although Groundwater, which is often
the end-point of these releases, was
named a budget priority by five
Regions.
o The most frequently mentioned activities
include: research and technology
development enforcement, problem
assessment, and remedation/
removal.
ABSOLUTE RANKING IN 20 PROBLEMS: 9
AVERAGE: 9.2
RANGE: 1 TO 16
# RANKING THIS IN TOP FIVE: 2
IN TOP TEN: 4
ASKING FOR MORE BUDGET: ONE
PAGE A-9
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKING
FY 1991
10 EXPOSURE TO EXISTING CHEMICALS
PAGE A-10
RISK BUDGET
REGION RANK PRIORITIES
I
6
II
14
III
17
IV
2
V
4
VI
10
VII
3
VIII
12
IX
15
X
12
o Four Regions ranked Exposure to Existing
Chemicals in the top ten of their rankings.
No Regions named this problem area as
a budget priority.
o Of the five Regions submitting separate
ecological and human health rankings,
all placed Exposure to Chemicals higher
on the human health rarking than on
the ecological ranking.
o Outreach (technology transfer) and
enforcement/inspections were cited
as needed activities to address problems
related to chemical exposure.
ABSOLUTE RANK IN 20 PROBLEMS: 10
AVERAGE: 9.5
RANGE: 2 TO 17
# RANKING THIS IN TOP FIVE: 3
IN TOP TEN: 5
ASKING FOR MORE BUDGET: NONE
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKING
11 INDOOR AIR
RISK BUDGET
REGION RANK PRIORITIES
I
15
II
18
III
5
1
IV
4
3
V
13
VI
19
VII
7
5
VIII
10
2
IX
12
X
3
1
ABSOLUTE RANK IN 20 PROBLEMS: 11
AVERAGE: 10.6
RANGE: 3 TO 19
# RANKING THIS IN TOP FIVE: 3
IN TOP TEN: 4
ASKING FOR MORE BUDGET: 5
o Indoor Air pollution can cause a variety of
short-term and long-term health problems
dependhg on the type and mix of pollutants.
Commonlndoor Air problems include Radon,
tobacco smoke, asbestos, volatie organics.
pesticides and bacteria.
o Correction of Indoor Air problems can
require changes in architecture of new
buidngs or management of exlsthg ones,
and consideration of materials used
in furnishings. As many as 30% of new
or remodelled buidngs may have
Indoor Air quality problems.
o Federal authority passed in 1986 requires EPA
to conduct research, provide public information
and technical assistance, and to coordnate
Federal activities on hdoor Air quality.
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKING
FY 1991
12 PUBLIC DRINKING WATER MANAGEMENT
PAGE A-12
RISK BUDGET
REGION RANK PRIORITIES
I
12
II
19
III
9
IV
20
V
12
VI
9
VII
12
VIII
3
IX
4
X
11
4
3
3
4
o Pubic Drinking Water Management rarked
lower in the FY 1991 rawing than in the
FY 1990 raiding, in which it ranked
tittri.
o The two Regions ranking this area In the top
five of ther risk rankings (Regions VH and
IX) also named it as a Duagef priority.
o Of the four Regions ranking Pubic Drinking
Water Management among their top ten
environmental problems, the activities
they cite Include regiiation development
state management grants, and
enforcement.
ABSOLUTE RANK IN 20 PROBLEMS: 12
AVERAGE: 11.1
RANGE: 3 TO 20
# RANKING THIS IN TOP FIVE: 2
IN TOP TEN: 4
ASKING FOR MORE BUDGET: 4
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKING
13 REGIONAL AIR QUALITY
RISK BUDGET
REGION RANK PRIORITIES
I 2
II 1
III 1
IV 8
V 17
VI 13
VII 16
VIII 17
IX 18
X 20
ABSOLUTE RANK IN 20 PROBLEMS: 13
AVERAGE: 11.3
RANGE: 1 TO 20
# RANKING THIS IN TOP FIVE: 3
IN TOP TEN: 4
ASKING FOR MORE BUDGET: 2
o This problem includes air polution
problems of a regional nature,
inducing air deposition and transport
of polutants, acid rain and vistotty.
o Regional Air Quality cimbed from #19
on the FY 19901st to #13 this year,
due to very high ranks from the north-
eastern Regions. Regions 11 and I
placed Regional Air in the top two;
Regions V through X placed 1 in the
bottom ten.
o Control of regional air problems involves
using SPs and other authorities to limit
emissions of NAAQS and toxics
polutants, and researching and modeing
the behavior of polutants as they mix
and move, usuafiy northeastward.
Regions caled for continued support of
the Regional Oxidant Modeing Network
(ROMNET).
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKING
14 CHEMICAL EMERGENCIES
RISK BUDGET
REGION RANK PRIORITIES
I
4
II
20
III
18
IV
19
V
4
VI
8
VII
17
VIII
4
IX
13
X
10
ABSOLUTE RANK IN 20 PROBLEMS: 14
AVERAGE: 11.7
RANGE: 4 TO 20
# RANKING THIS IN TOP FIVE: 3
IN TOP TEN: 5
ASKING FOR MORE BUDGET: NONE
o Chemical Emergencies and Exposure to
Chemicals were combhed by Region V
and ranked fourth. Regions I and VIII
also gave Chemical Emergencies
relatively high rankings.
o Chemical Emergencies remained in
approximately the same place on the
rankings for FY 1990. where it
ranked thirteenth, and for FY 1991,
where it ranked fourteenth.
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM HANKING
FY 1991
15 HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
PAGE A-15
RISK BUDGET
REGION RANK PRIORITIES
I
18
II
III
14
IV
12
V
11
VI
12
VII
9
VIII
9
IX
7
X
15
o Hazardous Wasta Management fel
significantly on the national aggregate
ranking from FY 1990. lnFY1990.it
ranked seventh and in FY 1991. R
rarked fifteenth.
o Hazardous Waste Management was
ranked in the top ten by three Regions,
and one Region (I) named it as a top
budget priority.
o The key waste management activities cited
by the Regions include: enforcement,
permitting, technology and regulatory
development, and facility siting.
ABSOLUTE RANK IN 20 PROBLEMS: 15
AVERAGE: 11.9
RANGE: 7 TO 15
# RANKING THIS IN TOP FIVE: NONE
IN TOP TEN: 3
ASKING FOR MORE BUDGET: ONE
-------
REGIONAL ENVRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANWNG
16 LAKES
RISK BUDGET
REGION RANK PRIORITIES
I 17
II 5
III 13
IV 10
V 16
VI 15
VII 13
VIII NO RANK
IX 20
X 14
ABSOLUTE RANK IN 20 PROBLEMS: 16
AVERAGE: 13.7
RANGE: 5 TO 20
# RANKING THIS IN TOP FIVE: ONE
IN TOP TEN: ONE
ASKING FOR MORE BUDGET: NONE
o Lakes received its highest raridng from .
Region I which rarked Lakes second
on its separate ecological risk raridng.
o Region D named planning/strategy
development and implementation as the
most needed activities related to Lakes.
o No Regions named Lakes as a budget
priority.
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKING
FY 1991
17 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PAGE A-17
REGION
RISK BUDGET
RANK PRIORITIES
I
19
4
II
13
1
III
19
IV
17
V
9
4
VI
18
VII
5
4
VIII
13
IX
9
5
X
18
2
o Solid Waste Management was ranked
by six regions as a budget priority,
more than any other problem area
except Radon. In the FY 1990
ranking, Sold Waste Management
was ranked by four Regions as
budget priority, more than any
other problem related to waste.
o In spite of its high profite as a budget
need Solid Waste Management fel
from 11 to 17 on the national
aggregate ranking between FY
1990 and FY 1991.
o Of the three Regions citing needed
activities for Sofd waste
management (Regions V, VI, and
IX), al named regulation
development and two named problem
assessment.
ABSOLUTE RANK IN 20 PROBLEMS: 17
AVERAGE: 14.0
RANGE: 5 TO 19
# RANKING THIS IN TOP FIVE: ONE
IN TOP TEN: 3
ASKING FOR MORE BUDGET: 6
-------
REGIONAL ENVRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKING
FY 1991
18 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
PAGE A-18
RISK BUDGET
REGION RANK PRIORITIES
I
13
II
16
III
16
IV
7
V
15
VI
20
VII
15
VIII
14
IX
16
X
16
o USTs was ranked in the top ten by only
one Region (IV).
o Whie no Region rarked USTs as budget
priority, five ranked Groundwater and
one ranked Hazardous Waste Releases,
both of which could Include response
to UST problems.
o The Regions cited three key UST activities
enforcement, inspections, and research
regulatory development.
ABSOLUTE RANK IN 20 PROBLEMS: 10
AVERAGE: 14.8
RANGE: 7 TO 20
# RANKING THIS IN TOP FIVE: NONE
IN TOP TEN: ONE
ASKING FOR MORE BUDGET: NONE
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKING
19 OCEANS
RISK BUDGET
REGION RANK PRIORITIES
I 14
II 10
III 20
IV 18
V 19
VI 14
VII NO RANK
VIII NO RANK
IX 17
X 17
ABSOLUTE RANK IN 20 PROBLEMS: 19
AVERAGE: 16.1
RANGE: 10 TO 20
# RANKING THIS IN TOP FIVE: NONE
IN TOP TEN: ONE
ASKING FOR MORE BUDGET: NONE
o Of the four Regions submitting separate
ecological and human health rarldngs
and ranking Oceans, three gave equal
or higher rank to Oceans on their
ecological risk ranking than on their
human health ranking.
o Oceans remained in approximately the same
place on the ranking for FY 1990, where
it ranked sixteenth, and for FY 1991
ranking, where it ranks nineteenth.
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM HAImKMG
20 RADIATION
RISK BUDGET
REGION RANK PRIORITIES
I
20
II
15
III
11
IV
15
V
18
VI
16
VII
18
VIII
16
IX
19
X
19
ABSOLUTE RANK IN 20 PROBLEMS: 20
AVERAGE: 16.7
RANGE: 11 TO 20
§ RANKING THIS IN TOP FIVE: NONE
IN TOP TEN: NONE
ASKING FOR MORE BUDGET: NONE
FY 1991
PAGE A-20
o Most radalion pollution arises from the
manufacture and dsposal of weaponry.
In 1984 the inventory of defense-related
wastes was over 10 million cubic feet.
The Inventory of waste from domestic
power production was about 100.000 cubic
feet. Research and medical work account
for a small remainder of racfioactive waste.
o In general, producers of radiation pollution
have succeeded in locaizing it geographically
but not in shortening its cenhries-tong
fifespan. Thus, whle this problem poses only
low immedate risk to human health and large
ecosystems, problems with radatkm poflution
arise a3 production continues and dsposal
areas do not expand. Many producers
worked to squeeze radioactive wastes into
smaller volumes.
o EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
have intersecting authorities related to
radiation. EPA is involved most frequently
when radiation is found at Stperfurxj sites,
as it is at the Hanford Reservation owned
by the Department of Defense. Hanford is
one of the nation's most extensive Super fund
sites of all types.
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKING
GLOBAL AIR
RISK BUDGET
REGION RANK PRIORITIES
I 20
II 9
III 22
IV 10
V 19
VI NO RANK
VII 11
VIII NO RANK
IX 13
X 3 6
ABSOLUTE RANK IN 20 PROBLEMS: NOT RANKED
# RANKING THIS IN TOP FIVE: ONE
IN TOP TEN: THREE
ASKING FOR MORE BUDGET: ONE
FY 1991
PAGE A-21
o This problem area includes substances
that deplete stratospheric ozone and
increases in carbon dioxide that may
lead to global warming.
o National policies implemented to address
Global Air problems have little or no
regional component. For this reason.
Global Air was not included in the
national aggregate ranking.
o Three Regions identified needed activities.
Among those listed were problem
assessment, planning/strategy
developement research, and support
of public information efforts.
o Region X ranked Global Air far higher
than any other Region (third) and also
identified it as a budget priority. It
ranks fourth on the Region's ecotogcal.
risk list and ninth on its human health risk
list.
-------
FY 1991 Regional Rankings of
Environmental Problems
Appendix B. Ranking Summaries For Regions.
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RAWING
REGION I
NATIONAL BUDGET
AVERAGE
PRIORITY
1
NAAQS
1
2
2
REGIONAL AIR QUALITY
13
5
3
SURFACE WATER
8
4
CHEMICAL EMERGENCIES
14
5
GROUNDWATER
3
3
6
EXPOSURE CHEMICALS
10
7
RADON
7
8
WETLANDS
6
9
EXPOSURE PESTICIDES
2
10
NEAR COASTAL WATERS
5
1
11
AIR TOXICS
4
12
DRINKING WATER MGT
12
13
UST
18
14
OCEANS
19
15
INDOOR AIR
11
16
HAZARD WASTE RELEASES
9
17
LAKES
16
18
HAZARD WASTE MGT
15
19
SOLID WASTE MGT
17
4
20
RADIATION
20
FY 1991
PAGE B-1
o Compared to the nation. Redon I Is much more
¦ concerned about Regional Akr Quaity. Surface
Water, and Chemical Emergencies and much
less concerned about Expostre to Pesticides.
Air Toxics, and Hazardous Waste Releases.
o In its separate rankings of human health and
ecological risk. Region I Isted Radon as its top
human health risk and Surface Waters as its
top ecological risk. NAAQS was also ranked
second on both the human health ranking
and on the ecological ranking.
o Region I has several States w#h concerns about
acid rain-affected Lakes, which Is reflected in
its high ranking of Regional Air Quaity.
-------
REGION I
Page B-2
PROBLEM AREA
1. NAAQS
2. REGIONAL AIR QUALITY
3. SURFACE WATERS
4. CHEMICAL EMERGENCIES
5. GROUNDWATER
6. EXPOSURE TO CHEMICALS
7. RADON
8. WETLANDS
9. EXPOSURE TO PESTICIDES
10. NEAR COASTAL WATERS
ACTIVITIES
O SUPPORT OF PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
o STATE GRANTS
o SUPPORT ROMNET & SIMILAR PROJECTS
o DEVELOP ACID PRECURSOR/REGIONAL HAZE VISIBILITY
REGULATIONS
O PERMITS
O ENFORCEMENT
O OUTREACH TITLE III
O ENFORCEMENT, SAFETY AUDITS/INSPECTIONS
o DEVELOP/IMPLEMENT WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM
o TARGET REGULATORY ACTIONS IN HIGH PRIORITY AREAS
O OUTREACH (TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER/TRAINING)
o ENFORCEMENT
o SUPPORT STATE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
o OUTREACH/TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO PUBLIC
o REVIEW CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMITS AND NEPA ACTIONS
O ENFORCEMENT
o SUPPORT STATE ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS INCLUDING WORKER
PROTECTION, CERTIFICATION AND TRAINING
O DEVELOP STATE PROGRAMS IN GROUNDWATER AND ENDANGERED
SPECIES
O IMPLEMENT NEAR COASTAL WATERS STRATEGY
O CONTINUE MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKNQ
REGION II
NATIONAL BUDGET
AVERAGE PRIORITY
1
REGIONAL AIR QUALITY
13
2
NEAR COASTAL WATERS
5
3
3
WETLANDS
6
4
AIR TOXICS
4
2
5
LAKES
16
6
SURFACE WATER
8
7
NAAQS
1
8
GROUNDWATER
3
9
EXPOSURE PESTICIDES
2
10
OCEANS
19
11
HAZARD WASTE RELEASES
9
12
HAZARD WASTE MGT
15
5
13
SOLID WASTE MGT
17
1
14
EXPOSURE CHEMICALS
10
15
RADIATION
20
2
16
UST
18
17
RADON
7
18
INDOOR AIR
11
19
DRINKING WATER MGT
12
4
20
CHEMICAL EMERGENCY
14
o Compared to the nation. Region I b much more
concerned about Regional Air Quality. Lakes
and Oceana, and much Ie88 concerned about
Radon and Indoor Air.
o While six of its top ten priorities are water-
related problems. Region I was one of two
Regions to rarfc Regional Air Quaity as Us
number one environmental problem.
o Although no soid/hazardous waste problem
rarked in Region ft top tea both Hazardous
and Solid Waste Management were isted as
budget priorities.
o Giving equal weight to human health and
ecological risk In determining its overal
ranking, the Region named Radon, Moor Air,
and Ar Toxics as Its top hunan health
problems and Regional Air Quality, Lakes,
and Global Air as Its top ecological problems.
-------
REGION II
Page B-4
PROBLEM AREA ACTIVITIES
1. REGIONAL AIR QUALITY o SUPPORT FOR ROMNET INITIATIVE AND THE APPLICATION OF
THE REGIONAL OXIDANT MODEL TO FUTURE SIP DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITIES
o DEVELOP CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDANCE
2. NEAR COASTAL WATERS o PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
o ENFORCEMENT
3. WETLANDS
4. AIR TOXICS
5. LAKES
6. SURFACE WATER
7. NAAQS
8. GROUNDWATER
9. GLOBAL AIR
10. PESTICIDES
O COMPLETE ADVANCE IDENTIFICATION PROCESSES (AVID) IN
NEW AREAS
o ENFORCEMENT
O IMPLEMENT CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 112 THROUGH SOURCE
CATEGORIES RATHER THAN SPECIFIC POLLUTANTS
o SUPPORT AIR TOXIC PUBLIC EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT STUDIES
O PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
O IMPLEMENTATION
o STATE REGULATIONS
O PERMITTING AND ENFORCEMENT
O IMPLEMENT FINAL POST-1987 POLICY AND GUIDANCE
O SUPPORT STATE DEVELOPMENT OF ATTAINABLE SIPS
O PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
o IMPLEMENTATION
o SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION TO REDUCE USE AND
PRODUCTION OF CFCs AND OTHER OZONE DEPLETERS
O RESEARCH ACTIVITIES/FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT OF
ALTERNATE TECHNOLOGIES AND CHEMICALS
o UPDATE RELABELING OF PESTICIDES
O IMPLEMENT WORKER PROTECTION SAFETY RULES
-------
REGIONAL. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RAWING
REGION III
NATIONAL BUDGET
AVERAGE PRIORITY
1 REGIONAL AIR QUALITY
13
2
2 NAAQS
1
3 NEAR COASTAL WATERS
5
4 SURFACE WATER
8
5 INDOOR AIR
11
1
6 WETLANDS
6
4
7 RADON
7
5
8 EXPOSURE PESTICIDES
2
9 DRINKING WATER MGT
12
3
10 GROUNDWATER
3
11 RADIATION
20
12 HAZARD WASTE RELEASES
9
13 PHYS MODIF TERREST. HABITAT
14 LAKES
16
15 HAZARD WASTE MGT
15
16 AIR TOXICS
4
17 UST
18
18 EXPOSURE CHEMICALS
10
19 CHEMICAL EMERGENCY
14
20 SOLID WASTE MGT
17
21 OCEANS
19
o Region I developed three rankings —
health, ecology, and welfare — In Its
Comparative Risk Project. In combining
these individual rankings for the purpose
of the FY 1991 regional rankha Region ¦
weighted health ecology, and welfare at 3,
2. and 1, respectively.
o Compared to the nation, Region I is much
more concerned about Regional Air. Indoor
Air, and Radatioa and much less concerned
about Air Toxics and Existing Chemicals.
Seven of the Region's top ten problem areas
also were rarked ki the top of the national
ranking.
o Regon Ill's high priority problems correspond
with its budget prioritiesw e.g.. Regional
Air Quaity. Indoor Air. and Radon.
o in addtion to ranking the national 1st Region
II named Physical Modfication of Terrestrial
Habitat as an area of special concern,
ranking it 13.
o Of Region ill's top ten priority areas, five are
water-related and four are air-related
problems.
-------
REGION III
PROBLEM AREA
1. REGIONAL AIR QUALITY
2. NAAQS
3. NEAR COASTAL WATERS
4. SURFACE WATER
5. INDOOR AIR
6. WETLANDS
7. RADON
8. EXPOSURE FROM PESTICIDES
9. PUBLIC DRINKING WATER
10. GROUNDWATER
12. CERCLA
ACTIVITIES
O PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
O STATE REGULATIONS
o REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT
o STATE REGULATIONS
O PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
O PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
O TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
o STATE REGULATIONS
O ENFORCEMENT (STATE)
O PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
o RESEARCH
o PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
O ENFORCEMENT/PERMITTING
o TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
o GRANTS
o STATE TRAINING
O GRANTS
O STATE GRANTS
O REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT
O PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
o STATE GRANTS
o ENFORCEMENT
O TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
-------
REGIONAL. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKNQ
REGION IV
NATIONAL BUDGET
AVERAGE PRIORITY
1 EXPOSURE PESTICIDES
2
1
2 EXPOSURE CHEMICALS
10
3 HAZARD WASTE RELEASES
9
2
4 INDOOR AIR
11
3
5 NAAQS
1
6 RADON
7
4
7 UST
18
8 REGIONAL AiR QUALITY
13
9 AIR TOXICS
4
5
10 LAKES
16
11 GROUNDWATER
3
12 HAZARD WASTE MGT
15
13 SURFACE WATER
8
14 WETLANDS
6
15 RADIATION
20
16 NEAR COASTAL WATERS
5
17 SOLID WASTE MGT
17
18 OCEANS
19
19 CHEMICAL EMERGENCY
14
20 DRINKING WATER MGT
12
o Region IV gave Exposure to Chemicals and
UST8 their highest rankings and Pubfic
Drinking Water Management and Near
Coastal Waters their lowest.
o Compared to the nation Region IV is more
concerned with Exposire to Chemicals,
indoor Air. Hazardous Waste Releases
and USTa and much less concerned with
Wetlands, Groundwater, and Near Coastal
Waters.
o The Region notes that the areas Isted as
budget priorities are those where increased
fundng would result fci the most immedate
environmental benefit.
-------
PROBLEM AREA
1. EXPOSURE TO PESTICIDES
2. EXPOSURE TO CHEMICALS
3. HAZARD HASTE RELEASES
4. INDOOR AIR
5. NAAQS
6. RADON
7. UST
8. REGIONAL AIR QUALITY
9. AIR TOXICS
10. GLOBAL AIR
REGION IV Page B-8
ACTIVITY
o ENFORCEMENT
O STATE TRAINING
O REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT
o RESEARCH
O TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
O RESEARCH
O PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
o PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
o REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT
O ENFORCEMENT
O TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
o REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT
o RESEARCH
O STATE REGULATIONS
O PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
O TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
o INSPECTIONS
O ENFORCEMENT
O RESEARCH
O PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKING)
REGION V
NATIONAL BUDGET
AVERAGE PRIORITY
1 RADON
7
5
2 AIR TOXICS
4
2
3 GROUNDWATER
3
4 EXPOSURE CHEMICALS
14
4 CHEMICAL EMERGENCY
10
5 NEAR COASTAL WATERS
5
1
6 NAAQS
1
7 EXPOSURE PESTICIDES
2
8 HAZARD WASTE RELEASES
9
9 SOLID WASTE MGT
17
4
10 WETLANDS
6
3
11 HAZARD WASTE MGT
15
12 DRINKING WATER MGT
12
13 INDOOR AIR
11
14 SURFACE WATER
8
15 UST
18
16 LAKES
16
17 REGIONAL AIR QUALITY
13
18 RADIATION
20
19 BIOTECHNOLOGY
20 NEW PESTICIDES
21 OCEANS 19
22 NEW CHEMICALS
o As in its FY 1990 ranking. Region V rarkad
Radon first we8 above its place on the
national aggregate rariang.
o Region V combined Exposure to Existing
Chemicals and Chemical Emergencies as
related (chronic and acute) aspects of
the same problem, and ranked them much
higher than the national aggregate ranking
o Region V's major concern in the Great Lakes,
used for drinking water as wel as fishing,
recreation, and navigation along the
nation's fourth coast. This is a rmiti-meda
concern with pesticides h rivers as non-point
sources of phosphorus and toxics, harbor
dredging stirring up toxic sedments, and toxic
atr deposition. Near Coastal Waters and Ak*
Toxics are the Region's top budget priorities.
-------
REGION V
Page B-10
PROBLEM AREA
1. RADON
2. AIR TOXICS
3. GROUNDWATER
4. EXPOSURE CHEMICALS
CHEMICAL EMERGENCY
5. NEAR COASTAL WATERS
6. NAAQS
7. EXPOSURE PESTICIDES
8. HAZARD WASTE RELEASES
9. SOLID WASTE MGT
10. WETLANDS
ACTIVITIES
o STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
o PUBLIC EDUCATION
o PROBLEM ASSESSMENT/SARA & 313 INVENTORY
O STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT/STATE REGULATION
O PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
o ENFORCEMENT/STATE REGULATION
o ENFORCEMENT
O PERMITTING/INSPECTION
O TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
o FEDERAL REGULATION/ENFORCEMENT
o ENFORCEMENT
o STATE REGULATION
O ENFORCEMENT
o STATE REGULATION/GRANTS
O PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
O PERMITTING/ENFORCEMENT
O PROBLEM ASSESSMENT/REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
O TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT/WASTE MINIMIZATION
o STATE REGULATION
o ENFORCEMENT
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKING
REGION VI
NATIONAL
AVERAGE
1
HAZARD WASTE RELEASES
9
2
EXPOSURE PESTICIDES
2
3
NAAQS
1
4
SURFACE WATER
8
5
WETLANDS
6
6
NEAR COASTAL WATERS
5
7
AIR TOXICS
4
8
CHEMICAL EMERGENCIES
14
9
DRINKING WATER MGT
12
10
EXPOSURE CHEMICALS
10
U
GROUNDWATER
3
12
HAZARD WASTE MGT
15
13
REGIONAL AIR QUALITY
13
14
OCEANS
19
15
LAKES
16
16
RADIATION
20
17
RADON
7
18
SOLID WASTE MGT
17
19
INDOOR AIR
11
20
UST
18
US/MEXICO BORDER
INDIAN LANDS
o This year Region VI has reiterated the
importance of problems related to the
U.S. /Mexico border and environmental
quaity on Indan Lands. In both years
these areas have appeared on Region VTs
risk ranking and budget ranking.
o Compared to the nation, Region VI Is much
more concerned about Hazardous Waste
Releases and Chemical Emergencies.
Compared to its rankings from last year,
Region VI assigned higher risks to
Wetlands and to Exposure to Existing
Chemicals.
o Region VI gave lower rarks to Hazardous
Waste Management and Underground
Storage Tanks this year. Coriyaredto
the nation. Groundwater, Radon and Indoor
Air received lower rarks from Region VI.
-------
REGION VI*
Page B-12
PROBLEM AREA
ACTIVITIES
1. NAAQS
(3)
2. HAZARDOUS WASTE RELEASES
(I)
3. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
(12)
4. WETLANDS
(5)
5. SURFACE WATERS
(4)
6. GROUND WATER
(II)
7. NEAR COASTAL WATERS
(6)
8. UST
(20)
9. AIR TOXICS
(7)
10. DRINKING WATER MGT
(9)
O ENFORCEMENT
O PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
O REMEDIATION
o REMOVAL
o PERMITTING
O ENFORCEMENT
o ENFORCEMENT
O PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
o NPDES CONTROLS/ENFORCEMENT
o NPS ASSESSMENT/MANAGEMENT CONTROLS
o SOURCE POLLUTANTS
O PREVENTION MEASURES
O POINT SOURCE
O NON-POINT SOURCE
O STATE DELEGATION
O ENFORCEMENT
o REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
o ENFORCEMENT
O ADDED MCLs/ADDITIONAL MONITORING
O IMPROVE STATE MANAGEMENT/EPA ENFORCEMENT
~Region VI did not give activities for the top ten on its risk ranking; rather, they
gave activities for the top ten areas of effort in the Region. The number in
parentheses is the problem's place on the Region's risk ranking.
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKNG
REGION VII
NATIONAL BUDGET
AVERAGE PRIORITY
1 GROUNDWATER 3 2
2 WETLANDS 6
3 DRINKING WATER MGMT 5
4 NAAQS 2
5 INDOOR AIR 6 1
6 AIR TOXICS 4 4
7 HAZARD WASTE RELEASES 3
8 HAZARD WASTE MGMT 7
9 SOLID WASTE MGMT 11
10 UST 14
11 RADIATION 17
12 EXPOSURE PESTICIDES 12
13 EXPOSURE CHEMICALS 15 3
14 CHEMICAL EMERGENCY 13
15 WETLANDS 10 5
16 LAKES 18
17 GLOBAL AIR 20
18 REGIONAL SCALE (AIR) 19
19 NEAR COASTAL WATERS 8
20 OCEANS 16
DIOXIN
FY 1991
PAGE B-13
o h its separate rankings of human health
and ecological risk. Recpon VI feted
Indoor Air as its top human health risk and
Groundwater as its top ecological risk.
Groundwater was also rarked second on
the human health ranking and Wetlands
second on the ecological ranking.
o Al of the problem areas Regions VI named
as budget priorities also rarked h the top
ten of its risk rarking.
-------
PROBLEM AREA
1. GROUNDWATER
2. WETLANDS
3. EXPOSURE CHEMICALS
4. AIR TOXICS
5. SOLID WASTE MGT
6. SURFACE WATER
7. INDOOR AIR
8. EXPOSURE PESTICIDES
9. HAZARD WASTE MGT
10. NAAQS
REglON VII Page B-14
ACTIVITIES
O OUTREACH/TECH TRANSFER AND ASSISTANCE
O GRANTS
o PROBLEM ASSESSMENT (e.g., RAINWATER BASIN)
O COMMUNITY EDUCATION
o OUTREACH/TECH TRANSFER AND ASSISTANCE
o INSPECTIONS/ENFORCEMENT
o RESEARCH/PROBLEM ASSESSMENT (REVIEW TITLE III DATA)
o OUTREACH/TECH TRANSFER AND ASSISTANCE
O GRANTS (INCLUDING STATE PROBLEM ASSESSMENT,
REGULATIONS, AND INSPECTION PROGRAM)
o OUTREACH/TECH TRANSFER AND ASSISTANCE
O INSPECTIONS/ENFORCEMENT
O OUTREACH/TECH TRANSFER AND ASSISTANCE (ESP. NON-POINT
SOURCE)
o RESEARCH
O PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
O OUTREACH/TECH TRANSFER AND ASSISTANCE
O INSPECTIONS/ENFORCEMENT
O PERMIT/INSPECT/ENFORCE
O STATE TRAINING
O STATE TRAINING
O INSPECT/ENFORCE
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKING
REGION VIII
NATIONAL BUDGET
AVERAGE PRIORITY
1
NAAQS
1
1
2
RADON
7
o
3
DRINKING WATER MGT
12
3
4
CHEMICAL EMERGENCIES
14
5
GROUNDWATER
3
4
6
HAZARD WASTE RELEASES
g
7
SURFACE WATER
8
5
8
AIR TOXICS
4
9
HAZARD WASTE MGT
15
10
INDOOR AIR
11
2
11
EXPOSURE PESTICIDES
2
12
EXPOSURE CHEMICALS
10
13
SOLID WASTE MGT
17
14
UST
18
15
WETLANDS
6
16
RADIATION
20
17
INDIAN LANDS
18
REGIONAL AIR QUALITY
POLLUTION PREVENTION
13
6
o Region VBTs risk ranking changed very
little from FY 1990 to FY 1991. The
Region ranked the new item Radon second
and increased the rank of Chemical
Emergencies from ninth to fourth.
o Compared to the nation Region VII is
much more concerned about Exposure to
Existing Pesticides and about Wetlands.
Collectively, the Regions ranked Pubic
Drinking Water Management and Chemical
Emergencies much higher than dd Region
VIII.
o Region VIII, with Region VI Included
Incfan Lands on its ranking of risks to
human and ecological health.
-------
REGION VIII
PROBLEM AREA
1. NAAQS
2. RADON
3. DRINKING WATER MGT
4. CHEMICAL EMERGENCIES
ACTIVITIES
O GRANTS
O STRATEGY
O ENFORCEMENT
O REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
O RESEARCH
O GRANTS
O TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT/TRANSFER
O PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
O PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING
O PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
O COMPLIANCE
O STATE OVERSIGHT
O TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT/TRANSFER
O LEGISLATION
O TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
o PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
O PREPAREDNESS/PLANNING
O ENFORCEMENT
5. GROUNDWATER o STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
O PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
o ENFORCEMENT
o PERMITTING
O STATE OVERSIGHT
o TECHNOLOGY/REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
6. HAZARDOUS WASTE RELEASES
/INACTIVE SITES
O ENFORCEMENT
o GRANTS
O TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
O REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
O STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
-------
o INSPECTION
O PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
Page B-17
7. SURFACE WATER
o COMPLIANCE
o STRATEGY/REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
O PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
O TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT/TRANSFER
8. AIR TOXICS
o GRANTS
O TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT/TRANSFER
O REGULATION
O RESEARCH
9. HAZARDOUS WASTE MGT
O ENFORCEMENT
o REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
O GRANTS
10. INDOOR AIR o RESEARCH
O GRANTS
o TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT/TRANSFER
o PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
O PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING
O PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKING
REGION IX
NATIONAL BUDGET
AVERAGE PRIORITY
1
NAAQS
1
2
RADON
7
q
3
AIR TOXICS
4
3
4
DRINKING WATER MGT
12
4
5
GROUNDWATER
3
6
EXPOSURE PESTICIDES
2
1
7
HAZARD WASTE MGT
15
8
WETLANDS
6
9
SOLID WASTE MGT
17
5
10
NEAR COASTAL WATERS
5
11
HAZARD WASTE RELEASES
9
12
INDOOR AIR
11
13
CHEMICAL EMERGENCY
14
14
SURFACE WATERS
8
15
EXPOSURE CHEMICALS
10
16
UST
18
17
OCEANS
19
18
REGIONAL AIR QUALITY
13
19
RADIATION
20
20
LAKES
16
FY 1991
PAGE B-16
o Region IX includes outer continental shelf
issues in its ranking of Near Coastal Waters,
and Mexican Border issues in its ranking of
Surface Water.
o The Region also notes that agricultural damage,
loss of agricultural land endangered species,
dredge material disposal. Proposition 65, and
pollution prevention are ackftional
environmental priorities.
o Compared to the nation. Region IX ranked Radon.
Public Drinking Water Management Hazardous
Waste Management, and Sold Waste
Management nigher.
o Region IX ranked Near Coastal Waters, Surface
Waters. Exposure to Existing Chemicals, and
Regional Air Quality lower than the national
aggregate ranking.
-------
REGION IX
Page B-19
PROBLEM AREA
1. NAAQS
2. RADON
3. AIR TOXICS
4. DRINKING WATER MGT
5. GROUNDWATER
6. EXISTING PESTICIDES
7. HAZARDOUS WASTE MGT
8. WETLANDS
ACTIVITY
o PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
o REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
o STATE REGULATION
o ENFORCEMENT
O RESEARCH (SURVEY)
O PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
O REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
o STATE REGULATION
O ENFORCEMENT
O REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
O ENFORCEMENT
O GRANTS
o REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
o TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
O GRANTS
O ENFORCEMENT
O STATE REGULATION
o PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
O ENFORCEMENT
O TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
O ENFORCEMENT
O PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
O ENFORCEMENT
O PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
o PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
-------
9. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
10. NEAR COASTAL WATERS
(includes Outer-
Continental Shelf)
Page B-20
O STATE REGULATION
o REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
O PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
O PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
o STATE REGULATION
O ENFORCEMENT
-------
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM RANKING
REGION X
NATIONAL BUDGET
AVERAGE PRIORITY
1
EXPOSURE PESTICIDES
2
3
2
NAAQS
1
3
INDOOR AIR
11
1
4
RADON
7
1
5
WETLANDS
6
5
6
GROUNDWATER
3
4
7
NEAR COASTAL WATERS
5
8
AIR TOXICS .
4
9
NONCHEM DEGRADN, TERRESTRIAL
10
SURFACE WATER
8
11
DRINKING WATER, PRIVATE
12
CHEMICAL EMERGENCY
14
13
DRINKING WATER MGT
12
14
EXPOSURE CHEMICAL
10
15
HAZARD WASTE RELEASES
9
16
LAKES
16
17
HAZARD WASTE MGT
15
18
UST
18
19
OCEANS
ig
20
SOLID WASTE MGT
17
2
21
RADIATION
20
oo
REGIONAL AIR QUALITY
GLOBAL AIR
13
6
o In addtion to ranking the national list.
Region X named Non-Chemical
Degradation of Terrestrial Areas
and Private Source Drinking Water
as areas of special concern, ranking
them 10 and 12. respectively.
o In combining its separate human health and
ecological rankings. Region X gave
double weight to human health risk.
o As its top three ecological problems, the
Region named Wetlands. Non-Chemical
Degradation of Terrestrial Areas, and
Exposure to Pesticides.
o On 8 s ranking of human health risks.
Region X ranked Indoor Air. Radon, and
Exposure to Pesticides as its top three
problems.
o With the exception of Sold Waste
Management, all of the Region's budget
priorities were ranked in the top ten of
its combined ranking. The Region
perceived Solid Waste as an area
where a small amount of investment
could most effectively work toward
effective management.
-------
REGION X
Page B-22
PROBLEM AREA
1. EXPOSURE PESTICIDES
2. NAAQS
3. INDOOR AIR
4. RADON
5. WETLANDS
6. GROUNDWATER
7. NEAR COASTAL WATERS
8. AIR TOXICS
9. NON-CHEMICAL DEGRADATION,
TERRESTRIAL
10. SURFACE WATER
ACTIVITY
o REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
O INSPECTION/ENFORCEMENT
o STATE REGULATION
o GRANTS
O PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
O PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
o PUBLIC EDUCATION
O REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
o PUBLIC EDUCATION
O PERMITTING
O ENFORCEMENT
o PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
o STATE REGULATION
o PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
O ENFORCEMENT
o STATE REGULATION
O PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
o ENFORCEMENT
o REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
o INSPECTION/ENFORCEMENT
O PRODUCT PHASE-OUT
O NEPA/COMPLIANCE
o STATE REGULATION
o ENFORCEMENT
-------
FY 1991 Regional Rankings of
Environmental Problems
Appendix C. Budget Rankings with Related Activities.
-------
APPENDIX C
BUDGET RANKINGS WITH RELATED ACTIVITIES
The activities listed are those identified by each Region for each of the top five budget priorities. Regions
submitted activities for their top ten risk priorities, where a budget priority was not also a top ten risk priority for a
given Region, no activities were listed. Region 9 was an exception in that they listed activities for all environmental
problem areas.
BUDGET PRIORITY
Rl: NEAR COASTAL WATERS
NAAQS
GROUNDWATER
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
REGIONAL AIR
TYPE ACTIVITIES
I IMPLEMENT NEAR COASTAL WATERS STRATEGY
I CONTINUE MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL ESTUARY
PROGRAM
P SUPPORT OF PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
G STATE GRANTS
R, I DEVELOP/IMPLEMENT WELLHEAD PROTECTION
PROGRAM
I TARGET REGULATORY ACTIONS IN HIGH PRIORITY
AREAS
• NONE LISTED
I SUPPORT ROMNET AND SIMILAR PROJECTS
R DEVELOP ACID PRECURSOR/REGIONAL HAZE
VISIBILITY REGULATIONS
R2: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
AIR TOXICS
NEAR COASTAL WATERS
DRINKING WATER
HAZ. WASTE MANAGEMENT
NONE LISTED
I IMPLEMENT CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 112 WITH SOURCE
CATEGORIES
D SUPPORT AIR TOXIC PUBLIC EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
STUDIES
P PLANNING/ STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
E ENFORCEMENT
• NONE LISTED
• NONE LISTED
R3: INDOOR AIR P
D
REGIONAL AIR P
R
DRINKING WATER G
R
PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
RESEARCH
PLANNING/ STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
STATE REGULATIONS
GRANTS TO THE STATES
REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT
-------
WETLANDS P
E,I
RADON D
G
PLANNING/ STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
ENFORCEMENT/ PERMITTING
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
GRANTS
PESTICIDES
E
ENFORCEMENT
I
STATE TRAINING
HAZARDOUS WASTE RELEASES
D
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
D
RESEARCH
INDOOR AIR
P
PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
P
PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
RADON
D
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
R
REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT
AIR TOXICS
E
INSPECTIONS
E
ENFORCEMENT
R5: NEAR COASTAL WATERS D
R,E
AIR TOXICS P
R
WETLANDS R
E
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT P
R
D
I
RADON P
I
R6: U.S./MEXICO BORDER
INDIAN LANDS
AIR TOXICS R
E
WETLANDS E
P
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
FEDERAL REGULATION/ ENFORCEMENT
PROBLEM ASSESSMENT/ SARA AND SECTION 313
INVENTORY
STATE STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT
STATE REGULATION
ENFORCEMENT
PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
WASTE MINIMIZATION
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC EDUCATION
NONE LISTED
NONE LISTED
REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT
ENFORCEMENT
ENFORCEMENT
PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
GROUNDWATER
I
I
SOURCE POLLUTANTS
PREVENTION MEASURES
-------
R7: GROUNDWATER
D
G
OUTREACH/TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND
ASSISTANCE
GRANTS
WETLANDS
P PROBLEM ASSESSMENT (e.g. RAINWATER BASIN)
I COMMUNITY EDUCATION
EXPOSURE TO PESTICIDES
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
D OUTREACH/TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND
ASSISTANCE
E INSPECTIONS/ENFORCEMENT
G GRANTS (STATE PROBLEM ASSESSMENT, REGULATIONS,
INSPECTION PROGRAM)
D OUTREACH/TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND
ASSISTANCE
INDOOR AIR D
P
R& NAAQS G
E
R
INDOOR AIR/RADON D
G
D
P
P
P
DRINKING WATER E
I
D
GROUNDWATER I
P
E
I
I
D
SURFACE WATER E,R
P
D
RESEARCH
PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
GRANTS
ENFORCEMENT
STRATEGY/REGULATORY DEVELOP.
RESEARCH
GRANTS
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOP./ TRANSFER
PLANNING/STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING
PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
COMPLIANCE
STATE OVERSIGHT
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOP./ TRANSFER
STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
ENFORCEMENT
PERMITTING
STATE OVERSIGHT
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOP./ TRANSFER
STRATEGY/ REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOP./ TRANSFER
OTHER BUDGET NEEDS:
POLLUTION PREVENTION
NPS
WETLANDS
INDIAN LANDS
SOLID WASTE
-------
R9: EXPOSURE TO PESTICIDES R
P
E
RADON D
P
R
AIR TOXICS R
E
R
DRINKING WATER E
G
R
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT R
R
P
STATE REGULATION
PLANNING/ STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
ENFORCEMENT
RESEARCH (SURVEY)
PLANNING/ STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
STATE REGULATION
ENFORCEMENT
REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
ENFORCEMENT
GRANTS
REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
STATE REGULATION
REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING/ STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
RIO: INDOOR AIR/RADON P
I
R
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PESTICIDES R
E
R
GROUNDWATER R
P
E
WETLANDS I
E
P
PLANNING/ STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC EDUCATION
REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
NONE LISTED
REGULATION DEVELOPMENT
INSPECTION/ ENFORCEMENT
STATE REGULATION
STATE REGULATION
PLANNING/ STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
ENFORCEMENT
PERMITTING
ENFORCEMENT
PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
GLOBAL AIR
NONE LISTED
-------
FY 1991 Regional Rankings of
Environmental Problems
Appendix D. Explanation of Calculations.
-------
1. Correlation of individual Regional risk rankings to the
national aggregate average;
o Method used: least squares correlation analysis
Correlation (r') between rankings was calculated using the
least squares method:
2
6 E (x-y)
r1 = l - , n = 20
2
n (n - 1)
Where x is the Region's rank number and y is the corresponding
number.of the rank against which that Region is being compared.
A correlation of one (+1.0) indicates perfect correlation;
zero (0.0), no correlation; and negative one (-1.0), perfect
inverse correlation. A correlation of +0.7 or greater is
considered, for the purposes of this analysis, to be a strong
correlation.
In situations where problems were "not ranked", we filled
the gaps to accommodate.the least squares analysis. For example,
Region V's fourth place ranking of two items were both adjusted
to become 4.5, And the remaining Region V ranks were readjusted
to range from 6 to 20.
2. Consistency of Regional risk rankings: A score from 0 to 50
was assigned to each problem on the environmental risk ranking,
which points to the level of agreement among the Regions on how
the item should be ranked.
o Method used: Deviation was determined by weighting
ranges of differences from the aggregate average
rank (mean).
o The scale of 0 (most disagreement) to 50 (most
agreement) resulted from point system used. Ranks
were weighted as follows:
+/- 2 from mean (rounded) = 5
+/- 3 from mean (rounded) = 4
+/- 4 from mean (rounded) = 3
+/- 5 from mean (rounded) = 1
o Empty cells were filled as in the least squares
calculation described above.
FY 1991 Regional Ranking
D- 1
-------
o An alternate method, giving a score from 0 to 30
and based on sum of cumulative number of ranks in
three groups +/-2, +/-3, and'+/-4 from mean range,
yielded very similar results.
o Standard deviation method yields poor results.
This is to be expected since it is neither
appropriate nor recommended for this application.
The number of activities mentioned for each budget priority
area varied with the number of times the problem area was listed
as a budget priority and with the number of times each budget
priority was also a top ten environmental priority.
-------
FY 1991 Regional Rankings of
Environmental Problems
Appendix E. Call Letter For FY 1991 Regional Ranking.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
1989
OFFICE OF
POLICY, PLANNING AND EVALUATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regional Ranking of Environmental Problems
FROM: j Linda J. Fisher
iJ Assistant Administrator^
TO:
Regional Administrators
''Si-
Last year, you participated in a process to establish a
relative ranking of the risks posed by environmental problems in
your Regions. Regions I, III, and X have done additional work in
determining their priority risks and have added to our collective
experience with risk-based planning. These rankings, the first
step in planning for FY 1991, can be valuable input to the annual
planning and priority setting process. I am asking all Regions
to refine and update the rankings developed last year, and I am
offering assistance in conducting the ranking exercise.
Over the past two years, the ranking process has assisted
National Program Managers by identifying where problems were
common to all or most Regions and where specific problems were of
primary concern to one or a few Regions. In the past, the
regional rankings have contributed to the setting of media
priorities for the development of budgets.
The FY 1990 rankings showed that, while the Regions
generally agree on which problems pose the greatest and least
risks, the Regions differ in where they rank specific problems.
Identifying these variations depends on all Regions ranking the
same list, with the same definitions.
Clearly, there are many environmental problem areas for
which we have limited information. As is true of many other
areas of our work, we will need to apply our best judgment to
evaluating these problem areas. Also, our knowledge continues to
improve and in many respects our 1991 ranking process will be
better informed than was last year's.
Over the past year, Regions I, III, and X have undertaken
comparative risk analyses to sharpen their regional priorities.
Working with them, OPPE has developed some techniques that have
-------
-2-
proven useful in assuring a systematic consideration of factors
with widely varying quality of information. We would like to
offer you assistance, in the form of workshops, to let you take
advantage of these approaches in your ranking process.
The attached package provides guidance for the ranking
process. Completing this task by March 1, 1989 will permit its
use in the FY 1991 planning and budget formulation and possibly
in the FY 1990 budget reviews. If you have questions, please
contact Bob Currie or Julie Shannon at 382-5439.
Attachments:
o Copy of last year's results
o Instructions for ranking environmental problems
cc: Deputy Assistant Administrators
Deputy Regional Administrators
SPMS Contacts
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR RANKING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
Background
The purpose of the ranking process is, first, to determine
which environmental problems present the greatest risk in each
Region and, second, to begin to set priorities for how to respond
to the risks. Ranking the environmental problems that the
Regions face is an important part of the Agency planning process
and may serve as a focal point for future regional reviews by the
Deputy Administrator. By using a consistent list in each Region,
the ranking identifies which problems are high priority across
the country and where Regions differ in ranking particular
problems. In addition, identifying activities and budget
priorities is important to the planning and budget formulation
process.
The final ranking will be used to represent each Region's
overall priorities, priorities within each media, as well as
activity and budget priorities. For this reason, it is important
that senior regional management actively participate in the
scoring and ranking process.
The results should be sent to the Deputy Administrator no
later than March 1. 1989.
Overview
We are asking you to complete three separate rankings, each
with different ground rules. Please keep the ground rules in
mind when doing each ranking so the results will be comparable
across regions. The ranking should be based only on the risks
caused by the problems. Factors that are important to other
parts of the planning process such as statutory mandates, cost,
technical feasibility, or public opinion should not be considered
for this process.
The process is dependent oh readily available information
and the professional experience and judgment of the regional
staff in assessing the relative risks related to each of the
environmental problems. As time goes on, it is expected that
Headquarters and the Regions will continue to collect data which
will improve our analytical capacity to assess relative risks.
The task is to rank the problems on the list (see Attachment
A for the list and definitions) based on the relative risk of
ecological and human health impacts.
The list has been designed to cover the major environmental
problems that the Agency addresses. If there is a significant
environmental problem that is unique to a Region which cannot be
accommodated under one of the listed problem areas, it should be
-------
-2-
added and ranked accordingly. Identifying these unique problem
areas will assist in discussions related to needed Regional
initiatives.
Each problem on the list will be scored based on an
assessment of the factors specified in the section below. After
each problem has been scored, the problems are ranked based on
their respective scores for ecological and human health risk.
The two lists are then to be combined into one. This later step
must be based on the professional judgment of the regional
management and staff and the outcome will represent the Region's
overall priorities.
The list that results should be compared with the ranking
produced last year to see if the changes are warranted. Over
time, and as data improves, major changes in the relative order
of the risk-based ranking should be reduced and the focus will be
on the strategies (activities) and the Region's assessment of
budget priorities.
The scoring process discussed below is a method to rate the
severity of the factors and to provide a score for the initial
ranking of the problems. The suggested scale (1 through 5) may be
adjusted if the Region needs to distribute the problems
differently. Attachment B provides a suggested set of scales.
Process for Developing Ranking
Ecological Ranking
Two factors, extent and intensity, should be considered in
developing scores for each problem on the list. Each factor is
scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest. The
factors are:
Extent of ecosystem affected: The areal extent of the
ecosystems adversely affected
by ecological stressors
associated with the problem
area.
Intensity of impact: The intensity of ecological
damage in a typical adversely
affected ecosystem.
/ill problems on the list are scored on one factor first so
that relative adjustments between the problems can be made. Once
scoring on the first factor is complete, the problems are scored
on the second factor. After .all scores for both factors have
been established, the scores are combined for a total score. The
total score is used to establish the initial ranking. The
problems with the highest scores, and thus the highest risk, ard^
-------
-3-
listed first.
Where there are identical scores, the group must review the
respective factor scores and adjust the ranking. Worksheet A can
be used to record the ecological factor scores and the total for
each problem.
The list should be reviewed again to assure that the ranking
reflects the group's discussions. Worksheet C mav be used to
record the final ecological ranking.
Human Health Ranking
The process for scoring and ranking the problems relative to
their impact on human health is similar to the process for the
ranking of ecological problems. Each factor is scored on a scale
of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest. The factors are:
Population exposed: The number of humans exposed
to pollutants from the
problem in amounts exceeding
levels of concern. Levels of
concern may be ambient
standards, NOAELs, the 10"6
level, etc.
Level of exposure: The levels at which exposure
occurs when it exceeds levels
of concern. Is the
population exposed to harmful
levels of a pollutant exposed
at marginally above the level
of concern, or are exposures
far above it?
Severity of effect: The severity of the adverse
human health effects from the
pollutants associated with
the problem area.
Again, all problems should be scored on one factor first so
that relative adjustments between the problems can be made.
After scores for all three factors have been established, the
scores are combined for a total score for each problem.
Worksheet B mav be used to record the factor scores and the total
human health scores.
The total score is then used to establish the initial
ranking. The highest scores should be listed first. Where there
are identical scores, the group must review the respective factor
scores and adjust the ranking.
-------
-4-
The list should be reviewed again to assure that the ranking
reflects the group's discussions. The results of the health
ranking should be entered on Worksheet C.
Combining Ecological and Health Rankings
The Agency priority-setting, planning, and budget
formulation processes require a single ranking which incorporates
both human health and ecological risks. This work must rely on
the professional judgment of the regional staff to translate the
respective ecological and health ranking into a single ranked
list. The results of the combined ranking should be compared
with the Region's submission from last year. If there are
differences, the differences should be discussed and the final
ranking adjusted as necessary. Once the ranking is completed,
enter the results on Worksheet D.
Activities
For each of the top ten priority problems, the two
activities that the Region thinks are most important to
addressing the problem should be listed. This information will
be used in the discussion of plans for FY 1991 and as input into
the budget formulation process. For each problem area, the two
activities should be listed in priority order. Some of the
activities that may be listed:
Problem assessment Permitting Research
Planning/strategy dev. state regulation Grants
Technology development Enforcement Inspections
Technology transfer State training Regulatory dev.
This information should be entered on Worksheet E.
Budget Priorities
Establishing budget priorities for the Region is a risk
management process. The Region is to identify the five problem
areas, in order of priority, which are most in need of additional
resources. This is an independent exercise from the primary risk
ranking. The information will be used as part of the budget
formulation and review process. The results of this discussion
should be listed on page 2 of Worksheet E.
Conclusion
The results of the ranking process will be analyzed and
provided to the Regions and program offices as input to the
planning process for FY 1991. Areas of agreement across the
-------
-5-
Regions will be identified as well as problems, activities, and
resource needs that are high priority to one or a few Regions.
Media specific relative rankings of problems, activities, and
resources needs will be developed for use in the media planning
and budget formulation discussions with the Administrator and
Deputy.
Information to be Submitted
Copies of Worksheets C. D. and E are to be submitted under
the signature of the Regional Administrator to the Deputy
Administrator no later than March l. 1989.
If you have any questions, please contact Bob Currie or
Julie Shannon at 382-5439.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM AREAS
Attachment A
1. NAAQS
Category includes effects from six criteria air pollutants
covered by National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
2. AIR TOXICS
Category includes effects from routine emissions of NESHAP
pollutants and other hazardous air pollutants, from all
(local and area) sources.
3. REGIONAL AIR QUALITY
Category includes effects from air pollution problems
affecting large (but not global) areas which may be
complicated by transport and by chemical transformations,
and are not directly addressed by NAAQS and NESHAPs.
Examples: air deposition, acid deposition, visibility,
regional ozone.
4. GLOBAL AIR ISSUES
Category includes effects of global warming and
stratospheric ozone depletion.
5. INDOOR AIR
Category includes risks from indoor exposures to pollutants,
excluding radon, household chemicals, passive smoke, VOCs.
6. RADON
Category includes effects of indoor exposure to radon.
7. RADIATION
Category includes health and ecological risks from the
manufacture, use, and disposal of radioactive materials, and
from radio frequency radiation (excludes natural background
radiation, nuclear power plant accidents, and medical X-
rays).
8. SURFACE WATER (streams/rivers)
Category includes impacts of contamination in rivers and
streams.
-------
9. NEAR COASTAL WATERS
Category includes impacts from contamination into near
coastal waters and Great Lakes.
10. LAKES
Category includes impacts from contamination to lakes.
11. WETLANDS
Category includes impacts from contamination, destruction,
and loss of wetlands.
12. GROUNDWATER
Category includes all effects from contaminated groundwater.
13. PUBLIC DRINKING WATER MANAGEMENT
Category includes effects from contamination in public
drinking water.
14. OCEANS
Category includes impacts from contamination of oceans.
15. HAZARDOUS WASTE RELEASES — INACTIVE SITES
Category includes effects from releases from inactive or
abandoned hazardous waste sites (CERCLA).
16. SOLID WASTE
Category includes effects from management and disposal of
solid waste.
17. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Category includes effects from active waste sites (covered
by RCRA).
18. CHEMICAL EMERGENCIES
Category includes risks from only accidental or emergency
releases of toxic suostances.
19. UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
Category includes risks from releases from underground
storage tanks.
-------
- 3 -
20. EXPOSURES FROM EXISTING PESTICIDES
Category includes risks from existing pesticides, by direct
or indirect routes. Includes effects on applicators,
farmworkers, target and non-target plants and wildlife, and
effects from ingestion of residues on food.
21. EXPOSURES FROM EXISTING CHEMICALS
Category includes effects from exposures to manufactured
high risk substances such as asbestos, PCBs, chlorinated
solvents, etc. (excludes pesticides).
-------
Attachment B
Possible rough scoring system for these factors:
Based on 1 to 5 (6 for population exposed) points for each
factor. Higher score means higher risk.
Population exposed:
6 = Over 1 million
5 = 100,000 to 1 million
4 = 10,000 to 100,000
3 = 1,000 to 10,000
2 = 100 to 1,000
1 = less than 100
Level of exposure:
5 = More than several orders of magnitude above levels of
concern
3 = About 2 orders of magnitude above levels of concern
1 = Only marginally above levels of concern
Severity of effect:
5 = Death, severe mental retardation, fatal cancers
4 = Less severe effects that leave one permanently with
diminished well being
3 = Treatable diseases that cause temporary incapacitation
(perhaps several weeks)
1 = Minor, transient irritation
Extent of ecosystem affected:
5 = Substantial fraction (1/4 or more) of one ecosystem, or
more than one ecosystem affected (e.g., freshwater
wetlands, lakes, forests, etc.)
4 = Substantial fraction of one ecosystem affected
3 = Widespread impacts to one or more ecosystem
1 = Ecosystem impacts only localized near the source of the
problem
Intensity of impact:
5 = Ecosystem rendered virtually lifeless
4 = Drastic change to the nature of the ecosystem, but
still abundant life. Very different set of species
present.
3 = Extinction of one or more species from ecosystem, but
general nature of ecosystem unchanged
2 = Substantial stress to one or more species in ecosystem,
but no extinction
1 = Occasional mortality of individuals, but no real
threats to species
-------
WORKSHEET FOR RISK FACTORS £<" Worksheet A
Problem
Extent
Intensity
Total
1.NAAQS
2. AIR TOXICS
3. REGIONAL
AIR QUALITY
4. GLOBAL AIR
5. RADON
6. INDOOR AIR
7. RADIATION
8. SURFACE
WATER
9. NEAR COASTAL
WATER
10. LAKES
11. WETLANDS
12. GROUNDWATER
13. PUBLIC DRINKING
WATER MGT.
14. OCEANS
15. HAZARDOUS WASTE
RELEASES
16. SOLID WASTE MGT.
17. HAZARDOUS WASTE
MGT.
-------
Problem
Extent
Intensity
Total
18. CHEMICAL
EMERGENCIES
19. UST
20. EXPOSURE TO
PESTICIDES
21. EXPOSURE TO
CHEMICALS
REGION SPECIFIC
t
COMMENTS
-------
WORKSHEET FOR RISK FACTORS
Problem
1.NAAQS
Population
Exposed
Level of
Exposure
HEALTH
Severity
of Effect
Worksheet B
Total
2. AIR TOXICS
3. REGIONAL
AIR QUALITY
4. GLOBAL AIR
5. RADON
6. INDOOR AIR
7. RADIATION
8. SURFACE
WATER
9. NEAR COASTAL
WATER
10. lakIs
11. WETLANDS
12. GROUNDWATER
13. PUBLIC DRINKING
WATER MGT.
14. OCEANS
15. HAZARDOUS WASTE
RELEASES
16. SOLID WASTE MGT.
17. HAZARDOUS WASTE
MGT.
-------
Problem
Population
Exposed
Level of
Exposure
Severity
of Effect
Total
18. CHEMICAL
EMERGENCIES
19. UST
20. EXPOSURE TO
PESTICIDES
21. EXPOSURE TO
CHEMICALS
REGION SPECIFIC ^
COMMENTS
-------
1.
Region Worksheet C
RANKING OF ECOLOGICAL AND HUMAN HEALTH PROBLEMS
ECOLOGICAL PROBLEMS HUMAN HEALTH PROBLEMS
3^_
4 .
5 .
6 .
7 .
8 .
9 . ^
10. __
11-_
12. _
13. _
14 .
15 .
16 .
17. _
18. _
19 __
20. _
-------
Region
Worksheet C Cont.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Comments as needed
-------
Region Worksheet D
COMBINED RANKING OF ECOLOGICAL AND HUMAN HEALTH RANKINGS
1 . ; 14.
2 . ; 15.
3^ 16.
4 . 17.
5 . 18.
6 . 19.
7 . 20.
8 . ; 21.
9 . 22.
10 . 23.
11 . 24.
12 . | 25.
13 .
Comments as needed
-------
Region
TOP TEN PRIORITY PROBLEMS
1 .
2 .
3.
4 . ,
5 . :
6.
7 .
8 .
Worksheet E
ACTIVITIES
a .
b .
a .
b .
a.
b .
a .
b .
a .
b .
a .
b.
a .
b .
a .
b . .
a .
b .
10.
a.
-------
Region Worksheet E Cont.
-2-
BUDGET PRIORITIES
List in priority order, the problem areas where resources should be
increased.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Comments as needed
-------